2004-11-05

[Stage Direction]
(Bill C-333. On the Order: Private Members' Bills:)

Bill C-333, an act to recognize the injustices done to Chinese immigrants by head taxes and exclusion legislation, to provide for recognition of the extraordinary contribution they made to Canada, and to provide for restitution which is to be applied to education on Chinese Canadian history and the promotion of racial harmony.

Mr. David Chatters (Battle River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all parties and I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-333 from the order paper.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

Government Orders
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec ActHon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in the House as Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie. I will therefore begin, if I may, with a few words to the people of my riding. I would like to thank the people of Brossard—La Prairie for their confidence in me. These are people who know how to build bridges and work together for the common good. I am very proud of them.
I am very pleased to mention how proud I am of my own people in Brossard—La Prairie on this occasion of my first rising in the House after being appointed Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the members of this House on the occasion of second reading of Bill C-9 to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which the Prime Minister did me the honour of entrusting to me on July 20.
This bill defines the framework within which the government intends to address the regional economic development of Quebec. Why have such a bill? First of all, because the agency as we know it operates under the terms of a series of orders in council under the Department of Industry Act. By providing a legislative framework governing the operations of the department and confirming its status, prerogatives, powers and authorities, we hope to make the minister responsible more directly accountable. There is also a requirement for the agency to submit to Parliament a comprehensive report of activities by December 31, 2006 and every five years thereafter.
The second purpose of this bill is to establish consistency in the status of the federal departments responsible for regional development. It provides the agency with a legal basis on its own right, modelled after the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, ACOA, which of course looks after the Atlantic provinces, and the Department of Western Economic Diversification for the west, both of which have had that status for several years.
Last, the bill is a testimony to the commitment of the Government of Canada to support regional development in our country through regional economic development agencies, in cooperation and in sync with our provincial counterparts.
The bill before the House today establishes the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, commonly known as Canada Economic Development or CED, since the use of acronyms is so widespread in Ottawa. The bill confirms its role as a federal agency whose mandate is to foster economic development opportunities for the regions of Quebec.
That being said, this bill does not make any change to the agency's mandate or goals as set by my department. So, how can we describe our mandate in simple terms? In order to become or remain competitive, our businesses, and especially our small and medium size businesses, often need some help, and they can count on us. To compete against the best, businesses must benefit from unconditional support in terms of research and development, and they can count on us. To revitalize or preserve the vitality of our regions, they can count on us. To help create a climate that would persuade our youth to stay in or to come back to their region, career opportunities have to be provided, and they can count on us. To stimulate the economy in our regions whose main towns are single-industry based, and therefore, of course, more vulnerable, the economy needs to be diversified, and they can count on us. To help communities move away from dependency and stand on their own feet, they can count on us. To grow, businesses have to export and rely on some support and networking, and they can count on us. They can count on us for everything that brings dignity to workers, confidence in the future, some comfort and a certain enthusiasm. We are there for the families. That is the beauty of our department.
As far as I am concerned, the economy is not an end in itself. It is only an instrument to enhance individual and collective well-being. That is how I see the mandate of my department.
To fulfill this mandate in the past few years, Canada Economic Development has focused its efforts on achieving three strategic results, that is, SME development, improvement of the environment of regional economic development and development or renewal of collective infrastructure. Our development strategies are tailored and adapted to regional and even local needs.
It is precisely to ensure that our strategies respond to the needs of the people that the bill gives the agency the responsibility of directing and coordinating federal policies and programs in relation to the development and diversification of the economy of Quebec regions.
The bill confirms the role of the agency and its minister in the coordination of federal policies and programs, the achievement of an integrated federal strategy, with the cooperation of other relevant federal departments and agencies, and the promotion—I did not say defence, but promotion—of Quebec's interests in the development of national policies and programs in its area of activity.
This ability to listen, this very fine synchronization, this intimate knowledge of the field and the players are the trademarks of this department that I am honoured to head.
All members—I repeat all members—who, at some time or another, have been interested in regional development recognize this quality over and above any political partisanship.
Thus, it will be incumbent on the agency to establish and maintain close partnerships to properly play the role of unifier and coordinator with other federal departments. Equally important, it is incumbent on the Canada Economic Development to work closely with the Government of Quebec, throughout the province and in all regions. This has been a common practice for a long time. This bill confirms this desire.
Still, complementary does not necessarily mean identical. Sometimes Quebec City and Ottawa do not have identical goals. Complementary means, for example, that Quebec City is able to work with certain businesses because they share similar goals, while Ottawa can support other businesses for the same reason.
In the end, it benefits everyone. The bill also recognizes the importance of working in close collaboration with all actors in the field—Economic Development Canada, entrepreneurs, development agencies, research centres and so on.
Here I want to pay tribute most emphatically to all the employees in our 14 regional offices and head office, who enhance our reputation through the quality of their work, their knowledge of the environment and their professionalism.
I would also like to remind the House that the Government of Canada created its first regional development policy in the 1960s, thus recognizing that the needs and realities of the country's various regions sometimes required interventions to ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens. This principle has even been recognized in the Constitution, in section 36.1.
And let this be perfectly clear: ensuring equality of opportunity does not mean giving everyone, everywhere, the same thing. Rather, it means to make sure that everyone, everywhere is treated fairly. Today, the needs that once justified our regional development activities in Quebec have not disappeared, but they have evolved a great deal. In order to meet these changing conditions and take advantage of them, since 2001, the agency has been emphasizing innovation and the knowledge economy.
In the last five years, the relative share of financial assistance granted by the agency to innovation projects has increased considerably, from 24% of total financial assistance in 1999-2000 to 61% in 2003-04.
With respect to the knowledge economy, we have provided support for a number of research centre projects. For example, there is our support for the plan to acquire highly specialized equipment for ISMER, the ocean sciences institute of the Université du Québec à Rimouski. I could also mention the Aluminium Technology Centre in the Saguenay. Here I should thank our former colleague, André Harvey, who worked very hard on this project for his region.
I could also mention the Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Centre in Montreal. Of course, this one is of particular interest to me, because such firms as Pratt &amp; Whitney, Héroux-Devtek and others, which are very significant in the aerospace and aeronautical field, are located in my region.
Our communities are our greatest assets. Our recent throne speech said what makes our communities strong is the willingness of men and women from allwalks of life to take responsibility for their future and for one another.
The solution to the problems in the regions is not to be found in the ivory towers of our capital cities, but in the regions themselves. Communities are in a better position to find local solutions to local problems, to meet the challenges, and to achieve their potential.
The agency's role is to support regional entrepreneurship with all the resources available and help the regions channel their energy toward strategic projects for their development.
For over 20 years, the Canadian government has been active in the communities and regions through the community futures program, the goal of which is to encourage communities to take charge of their own future. In the context of this program, the Canadian government is cooperating with 57 community futures development corporations, or CFDCs, and 9 business development centres, or BDCs.
The youth strategy which CED is implementing is an example of action by CFDCs. Its main goal is to help young men and women in rural areas of Quebec fulfill their dream of having their own business in their area.
From November 1997 to March 31, 2003, the youth strategy helped fund 2,731 entrepreneurs, promoting the creation, growth and modernization of 2,250 business in rural regions of Quebec. That is why it should be emphasized that, for each dollar invested by CED, a total of $7 was invested. This is a remarkable performance.
Better yet, the youth strategy helps young people who migrated to urban centres to study or work, to come back to their region and start their own business.
Through the Community Futures Program, Canada Economic Development supports 13 CEDC, community economic development corporations, which provide services and support to community organizations and SMEs in disadvantaged urban areas in Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Gatineau.
We also contribute to the maintenance and development of community infrastructures in close cooperation with the Quebec Government. I am referring of course to the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement. This program is a resounding success. Allow me to pay a tribute to my counterpart, Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister, for his cooperation, hard work and professionalism.
Financial support provided through this program should help in the short term to improve Quebec community and transportation infrastructures, develop new technologies, and improve the management of drinking water, waste water and solid waste.
The agency intends to develop the social economy sector to better meet the needs expressed by the communities.
In Quebec alone, there are over 7,000 social economy businesses . With annual sales of over $17 billion, they employ more than 125,000 people. These businesses are rooted in the community and play an essential role in regional and rural development.
As of March 31, 2004, there were over 2,100 projects across Quebec receiving support from the agency overall. These projects represent a contribution of close to $4 billion to Quebec regional economies. The agency is involved to the tune of $1 billion.
These numbers speak for themselves. They show how much the various projects help strengthen the economy in our regions. Of course, since the good economic health of Canada depends in part on a vigorous Quebec economy, good results in Quebec can only have a beneficial impact on the Canadian economy as a whole, where Quebec continues to make a difference.
These numbers are impressive, of course, but the reality they represent is even more so. Whenever the Economic Development Agency becomes involved in a project, our fellow citizens benefit, jobs are created and thousands of lives take a turn for the better.
Take for example the quartz production plant in Cap-Chat, Gaspésie, where 60 new high technology jobs will not only help families to earn a living but to develop expertise in job intensive areas.
The cooperative La Relève in the Asbestos RCM is another good example. We have decided to support it because it has chosen to tackle the exodus of young people to urban centres.
Another example would be Renyco, a company that specializes in manufacturing hardwood flooring in Thurso. The Outaouais regional office has invested a total of $342,000, but thanks to the developer's know-how, finished products are of a better quality, productivity has increased by 15%, sales have tripled and the company has created about thirty jobs in rural areas.
Since we wanted the development to be part of the surrounding realities, we have adopted regional intervention strategies. These strategies were based on consultations, joint actions and mobilization of regional economic stakeholders. While enhancing local expertise, these strategies allow every region to define how each one of them can use the Agency's programs and services to maximum benefit.
Regional development is a complex issue. You cannot talk about it without taking environmental, social and cultural issues into account. It is thus essential to focus on the synergy of expertise provided by various departments.
I am not sure that I will have time to say everything I wanted to say, but I would like to come back to two elements. The first is the quality of the cooperation and the complementarity that exists between my department and the Quebec government in order to better serve the public, which expects nothing less. This regional development is in keeping with the desire expressed in the Speech from the Throne. We are being true to that mandate.
This mandate should have a broad humanistic vision. In this regard, if you allow me, I would like to conclude with an experience I had not so long ago, in one of my very first events as Minister of Economic Development Canada. I referred to that activity a bit earlier. I am talking about Sural, in Cap-Chat.
You know as well as I do that, when an announcement is made somewhere, generally, one meets with a few elected officials, some local stakeholders, perhaps the heads of organizations and members who deign to have an interest in those matters that come up. In general, that is the case.
In Cap-Chat, the room was full. The people were there, along with local elected officials. All the officials had mobilized to show how important this was. I saw people who, after long despairing, felt renewed hope for the first time in the Gaspé Peninsula. In their small municipality of 7,000, a plant was opening, which, when fully operational, would create 100 jobs. This is the aim of human dignity, which comes of the collective work which we, Economic Development Canada, have done in partnership with the Government of Quebec.
Local authorities got involved. Why would a business from Venezuela set up a plant in Cap-Chat? It looked totally incredible in the beginning. The community brought it about. It did it through its strength and its resolve. We were there to support that project, just as the Quebec Government was, and I am very proud of it.
The atmosphere in the room was electrifying. To me, the hope that the Sural project generated in the eyes of these people from the Gaspe is worth the recognition and the tributes.
I thank the people from Cap-Chat for giving me such a taste for my department.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech on Bill C-9. We hear that this bill will create a department of regional development in Quebec. This is the only time I heard the word “Quebec” in this broad definition that the minister has just given.
Obviously partnership is involved. Agencies are mentioned. However, I still feel that Bill C-9 shows one again that the federal government is interfering where it has no business. In addition, I also think that the government is trying to convince the Quebec regions, which where depopulated because of this government's employment insurance policies, that they will be repopulated.
You cannot imagine all the political decisions that have been made by this government. There is employment insurance. There is also the present crisis in the textile industry as well as the situation in agriculture and in the manufacturing industry, which is a soft sector. All these are international responsibilities, responsibilities that fall to the Government of Canada.
In my opinion, this is where the federal government should focus its actions, instead of once again creating regional duplication in Quebec.
Therefore, I ask the minister if he is ready to announce that he will work in close cooperation with the Quebec government on the project, meaning that he will hand over the federal funds to the Quebec department responsible for the regions and that the Province of Quebec will manage the funds because it is Quebec that is responsible for its regions.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, this statement was quite interesting.
First of all, I would remind the hon. member that this is simply an administrative bill. I talked about the mandate. However, the bill itself does not change a thing in the mandate. Therefore, I suggest that he read the bill before asking questions.
Second, he talked about jurisdictions. I will remind him that section 36.1 of the Constitution is extremely clear about the role of the federal government:

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities.

There is absolutely no mention of “regional development” in the Constitution. What gives them the right to usurp power that simply does not exist under the Canadian Constitution?
Third, the member deplores the fact that the word “Québec” occurs only once. I remind him that the agency's name is Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. If that is not enough, there must be some comprehension problem.
In conclusion, if I may, he referred to textiles, among other things. He said it involves an international responsibility and, therefore, it has to be addressed. I remind him that Economic Development Canada is managing softwood lumber support programs. The member contradicts himself for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance but a lot to do with a regrettable political bias.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding how the minister, who says he is responsible for regional development, can say that that responsibility is conferred to him by the Canadian Constitution.
I am surprised also that the Liberals know their Canadian Constitution. Indeed, judging by their behaviour in the House, one can conclude that they are constantly at odds with the Canadian Constitution, because they are always invading provincial fields of jurisdiction.
I find that reassuring, because a Liberal member has finally started to read his Constitution. In my opinion, this is good news today. That said, I hope he will also ask his colleagues to do the same, particularly all those who, since we came back on October 4, presented bills that fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Last week, the eloquent member for Outremont said that it was high time for his government to take care of federal jurisdictions. I also hope that the eloquent member for Outremont, who seems to have some control over Quebec, will ask his colleagues to read the Constitution. Indeed, at the present time, they do not respect the Constitution. They not only force it on us in 1982, but they do not even respect it.
When there are international and economic conflicts—and I call bilateral agreements that do not work conflict—it is not the textile industries that asked to be in trouble. It is this government which made the decision to remove import quotas two years in advance. When an economic situation is caused by a bilateral agreement or is about international trade, it is federal jurisdiction.
I am asking him if, instead of invading Quebec's fields of jurisdiction, he could look in his own yard and deal with the problems the regions of Quebec are facing because of his government.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I claim that Quebec is my backyard too.
With regard to the negative comments that the hon. member has made in relation to the interpretation of the Constitution, it is interesting to note that, had he read it, he would not have asked his first question. He would then have fully understood that regional development is not covered by the Constitution; therefore, the jurisdiction is shared.
Thirdly, he talks about textiles. Why doesn't he mention the fact that we have earmarked $26.7 million to maintain a program that we had already undertaken to help textile workers improve their performance and their ability to compete and find more profitable markets? They talk, we act.
There is one last thing I am quite interested in. These people live in the past. There is nothing I can do about that, I accept it, I have no alternative. We can choose between brooding over old quarrels and looking to what will be useful for the future of Gaspe, the Lower St. Lawrence, Sherbrooke, Montreal, research, the return of young people to their region of origin; all these are exciting plans for the future, plans that give hope.
Instead of confining myself to the nonsense of a misinterpreted past, I would rather focus on hope for the future of our youth and people in the regions. I will do it, with or without them.
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not really intend to address the issue at this time, but what I heard really made me sit up straight. It woke me up, but not in a positive way.
I would like to ask the minister a question about the record of the agency, especially in the region of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Just before the election, they announced that about $35 million would be spent over three years. Those three years were stretched to five years, and by March 31, 2004, only $11 million had been spent. Is that a good record? I do not think so.
What goes around comes around, so we are not about to be told what to do by a department whose goal is simply to become more visible, not more efficient. We should talk about efficiency. In terms of efficiency, Bernard Landry and his Parti Québécois government get top marks for what they did in the region of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, let me say that seeing a Bloc member come to the defence of Mr. Landry makes me smile a little. I thought that he had been elected to the federal level to work on the federal scene, for the good of Quebec, and not to defend his big Péquiste brother on the other side of the street.
There is one thing that interests me. I do not believe that the member opposite quite gets it that, when we intervene for the softwood lumber industry, we have to intervene in a way that does not open the door to justifying the Americans' misinterpretation of this problem. We cannot help the softwood lumber industry directly so that it is perceived as a subsidy and have the Americans come after us on this. We have to help in a smart way to diversify, to seek niches that will allow for the development of regions.
There is a third thing that I would like to focus on a little. I would like the Bloc to explain its reasoning. It tells Quebec that it will defend its interests. Now we create an agency that will be totally at arm's length from industry and that will focus exclusively on Quebec. The first thing that members want to do is vote against this to abdicate their responsibilities.
They want to be elected to not take responsibilities. If this is what they want, the people will make a judgment. Certainly, we, on this side, will not abdicate our responsibilities. We are the government and we will be there to help the regions of Quebec.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): This is my first speech in this House as a member of the Official Opposition and of the Conservative Party with you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate you on your new duties as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.
I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party to speak to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
The Conservative Party supports this bill whose intent stems directly from paragraph 28 of the Policy Statement of the Conservative Party of Canada.

—regional development policies are an important part of any comprehensive strategy to assist the regions of Canada to meet the opportunities of the new global economy.

In fact, Bill C-9 is very straightforward and uncontroversial. It creates the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec out of a program in the Industry Canada portfolio.
Basically, a program in the Industry Canada portfolio is being transformed into an agency. The staff from the former program will be maintained; their responsibilities will remain the same and their activities will continue. All that will change is the letterhead and business cards to reflect the agency's new legal status.
This will more or less place the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec on an equal footing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Bill C-9 will establish for Quebec an economic development agency reporting to Parliament through its own minister. We can see how its legal status is similar to that of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which was established un 1985 under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act.
While the purpose of the bill is mainly a name change, Bill C-9 also allows the government to say it is committed to regional development without spending a cent of new money. In this respect, Bill C-9 is brilliant and allows the Liberal government to do what it likes best: be all talk and no action. This way, a visionless government enjoys another day of doing nothing.
The regions need development, and the government's response is to change the business cards. That is all this bill is really about.
However, we are in favour of regional development and we believe that the responsibilities and structures of regional development agencies should be the same across the country.
That being said, I will now turn to the creation of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
As we all know, Bill C-9 was given first reading on October 8. Clause 8 of Bill C-9 says:

An Agency of the Government of Canada to be known as the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is established.

From that we conclude that the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec will come into being when Bill C-9 comes into force.
However, that is not so. In the summary of Bill C-9, we are told that the transformation from a former industry program under Industry Canada to a development agency answering to Parliament through its own minister has already happened. I quote the summary:

This bill is pursuant to the July 20, 2004, decision by the Prime Minister of Canada to effect a change to the governmental structure by appointing a Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This Minister is fully accountable for regional economic development in Quebec.

In the Speech from the Throne, Her Excellency The Governor General, speaking on behalf of the federal government, said:

The Government...will examine the need and options for reform of our democratic institutions—
The Government invites members from both Chambers to join with it in the same democratic spirit: committed to unity and the inclusion of all regions and all voices—

The very next day, the Prime Minister said:

—in a minority Commons, we all have a responsibility to make Parliament work for the people. We will fulfil that responsibility if we embrace and build on the democratic reforms initiated during the last session, and if we are prepared to allow the partisan to give way to progress.

We have a minority government, which means there are more opposition members than government members. In light of this situation, we presume there is a commitment to a spirit of democracy and to listening to all the voices from all the regions. We also presume that backbenchers will have a say in the establishment of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
Unfortunately, in this debate, my opinion and the opinion of members from the other parties, particularly Liberal backbenchers, does not mean anything, because the agency, which is the focus of Bill C-9, already exists, and the changes affecting its legal status have already been implemented. Therefore, this debate is strictly an academic exercise without any concrete impact.
It is sad to see that this government, which promised us that it would look at the needs and options relating to the reform of our democratic institutions, is asking us to debate a bill to create an agency that already exists. We must learn to judge this Prime Minister, based not on his words, but on his actions.
Since we support the establishment of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, I propose that all regional development agencies be on the same footing. We should promote regional development agencies that have similar responsibilities and structures right across the country.
At the national level, there are three different models of regional development. Bill C-9 will create, for Quebec, a development agency that will be accountable to Parliament, through its own department. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a development agency that is accountable to the Minister of Industry. As for the Department of Western Economic Diversification, it is not an agency, but a real department with its own minister.
Even the agencies' objectives are slightly different. In the Maritimes and in Newfoundland and Labrador, the role of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is to promote Atlantic Canada's economic development opportunities, particularly income growth and job creation in that region.
In western Canada, the Department of Western Economic Diversification is responsible for promoting economic development and diversification in that region, and the interests of that region during the development and implementation of policies, programs and operations under the national economic policy.
In Quebec, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec need only promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec.
In Quebec, the federal government is proposing an agency to promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions. In Atlantic Canada, there is a responsibility to increase revenues and create jobs.
In western Canada, there is a department that promotes the interests of this region within the national economic policy.
It is nice to know that the Gaspé does not need an agency to develop the growth of revenues and to create jobs. It is also encouraging to know that Quebeckers do not want a department in charge of promoting their interests within the national economic policy.
The government may have consulted Quebeckers and been convinced that they did not need an agency to create jobs or grow revenues, or a department to promote their interests within the national economic policy.
However, it is also possible that the government tried to get Quebeckers' opinion in the same spirit with which it presented this bill to Parliament. In other words, without too much consultation or attention to the response.
In any event, this is a case of asymmetrical federalism. The Conservatives are in favour of regional development and thus, we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, we believe that the regional development agencies, such as the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, have to be depoliticized and focus on drawing new investment from the private sector.
In light of the sponsorship scandal, it is very important that all agencies be depoliticized. In committee, Conservatives will do what they can to ensure that this agency is on equal footing with the other agencies, that it is free from any political influence and that it will serve Quebeckers, not just the Liberal Party of Canada.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech my hon. Conservative colleague just made. I would have thought that the Conservative Party, who is usually steadfast in its defence of provincial jurisdictions, would have--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Odina Desrochers: I'm not speaking to the minister at the moment. This is disturbing me when I speak--I can't concentrate on what I have to say.
I would have liked to ask the hon. Conservative member, whose party always defends the provinces' jurisdictions, including Quebec's, if it would not have been preferable for this bill to let the Quebec government manage the region's money instead of an agency that is only looking to increase its visibility in Quebec?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, in the Conservative Party, what we support in Canada really is equality in all regions of the country, from one end to the other. What we want to see is a federal government which respects the jurisdictions of provinces in an equal fashion in every region of this land.
That is not really what we are talking about right now. What we are deciding today, and this will be decided upon through a vote on this bill, is whether we support for Quebec what we already have for the Atlantic region and for the West.
I thought that the Bloc Québécois would support a bill which would put Quebec on an equal footing with other regions of Canada in terms of national finances. That is why we support Bill C-9.
We do not agree with the current program of the federal government concerning regional economic development. We do not agree with the program and with the theory underlying the Liberal government's ideas.
However, the reality is that bill would, in our opinion, be in the interest of Quebeckers. It would improve the life of economic regions and their development. That is why we support this bill.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I paid particular attention to two elements in the comments of my colleague. I understood from what he said that there could be wording differences between this bill and the act governing the western and the Atlantic regions.
Here is my first question: Would the hon. member be prepared to discuss this issue with me when it is debated in committee? I am quite ready to look at where and why there are differences, and to explain them, if necessary. I am open-minded.
My second question is this: When I appear before the parliamentary committee on budgets, would the hon. member agree that we take this opportunity to have a substantive debate on regional development? I would be quite ready to do so. Would he also be ready?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is always ready to discuss new ideas in order to get more economic benefits for regions in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. If the minister really is ready to talk with us in order to come up with new ideas or to consider new approaches, we are ready to introduce amendments to this bill in committee and in the House. We can talk about ways to improve this bill. If he is ready to make compromises, so are we.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the arguments I presented earlier on to my Conservative colleague.
I know that his federalist perspective inclines him to give some weight to the principle according to which each region of Canada should get its fair share. But that is a federalist principle. For members of a party such as ours, advocating the interests of Quebec exclusively, there is the conviction that it is not the job of the federal government to allocate money in Quebec. The federal government should give the money to Quebec and Quebec, much more attuned to regional needs, should allocate it.
Would his party be ready, within the framework of the amendments it wishes to put forward, to see money available at the federal level handed over to Quebec to administer on its own for the regions of Quebec?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the minister responsible for this bill, if the Bloc Québécois really has new ideas about this bill, and if that would be a better way to represent Quebec, then we would certainly be willing to consider that. I think we should support this bill, as should the Bloc Québécois.
Also, the way that money should be allocated is open for debate. However, it would be a regrettable error for the Bloc Québecois to oppose this bill intended to enhance economic development in the Province of Quebec and the situation of Quebeckers.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify his position on Bill C-9.
There could be some contradiction as to the creation of a department, because in his speech, he seemed to say that it would not change a whole lot with regard to regional socio-economic problems compared with what an effective agency could do.
We also understand that he is in favour of the bill. It is something different and I would like him to explain how on the one hand we can be supportive, since it will not change much or not even anything, while saying that what is needed is not necessarily a department, but some action.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, in fact this bill will promote the development of a department answering to Parliament. There would thus be a minister whom we could question on this program in the House, something we could not do before.
I agree with the member that there is really a problem, that there is an imbalance as far as the regional programs are concerned. This is, in my opinion, where we disagree with the Liberal government. We need a balanced national program, a program that would cover the whole country. This is part of the political program that our party presented to Quebeckers and to Canadians in the last electoral campaign. This is what we support and this is what we want.
The minister just told us that he would be willing to look at these propositions so there would be a balance to reflect the reality of our country in the economic development area. We would be willing to support this program and this approach. I do believe the minister when he says that he would be willing to discuss this proposition. We would be willing to discuss it too in order to make things better for Quebec within Canada.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, concerning the interventions that were made and the questions that were just asked.
My colleague opposite started his intervention by saying, “From his federalist point of view” when speaking about my colleague. Does it mean that, essentially, to him, the dogma of separation must prevail, no matter what is contained in the bills that we have to consider? Does he not think, like me, that when one hides behind dogmas, it is the best way not to face reality and that, essentially, what concerns these members more than anything else is not the interest of Quebec, but rather the interest of their option, which they pretend to be the interest of Quebec, which has never been demonstrated?
James Moore: I partly agree with what the minister just said. However, I must frankly tell the House and Canadians that I listen to everything that the Bloc Québécois tells us, because its agenda is to destroy our country and to use its money for a Quebec freed from Canada. All its agenda and its ideas are geared toward destroying our country.
From time to time, we agree with its approach and its ideas on different things. However, finally—and this is why I look closely at its ideas and I really examine everything it says—, in every step that it wants to undertake here, in Ottawa, in relation to its agenda, its every move is to destroy our country. We should not ignore this reality.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few seconds.
Unfortunately, when I look at the record, I feel we would need a fiscal imbalance department rather than a regional development department.
Actually, Quebeckers can easily take care of the development of Quebec. The funds allocated to the agency could just as easily go into the Quebec treasury or be administered by Quebeckers who know what the problems and the solutions are.
That is why I would encourage the Conservative member to examine this issue a little more closely. Given the results, people in the regions, and I am one of them, since I am from the area of Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, doubt that establishing a new department will be a really effective solution.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's reservations about this bill.
We know what happened with the sponsorship program. It was supposed to unite all Canadians and Quebeckers to promote the interests of the regions in Canada. It was turned into a program to serve the interests of the Liberal Party instead of the interests of Quebeckers and of Canada.
If the hon. member has in mind any changes he would like to make to the bill, we will examine them and support them if we agree.

Statements By Members
Career WeekMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, “Make Career Connections--Team Up!” is the theme of Canada Career Week 2004.
From October 31 to November 6 community events are being organized across Canada urging career seekers to access all their allies and connect with the people, programs and resources needed to develop workplace skills and build rewarding careers. By building networks of supporters and by being part of the networks of others, we can find challenging and rewarding work opportunities.
The Government of Canada realizes that our success in the knowledge-based economy depends on each Canadian realizing his or her career potential.
Earlier this week, Take Our Kids to Work Day helped students to job shadow an older friend or parent in the workplace and to explore the range of choices available to them after high school. Skills development does not stop at school but continues throughout our working lives.
The EnvironmentMs. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Durham region is one of the fastest growing areas in the greater Toronto area. We need to ensure that we do not fall behind. Durham needs a regional transportation plan and the federal government is an important part of this plan. The federal portion of the gas tax that will be dedicated to assisting rural areas and smaller communities is a key building block.
I rise today to congratulate a business in my riding which is doing its part to advance transportation and environmental causes and to contribute to cost savings for our municipality. The hydrogen fuel injection system, developed by Bowmanville based Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company will result in improved fuel economy and a reduction in emissions when installed on municipal buses.
Clarington is the first municipality in Canada to install this new technology on its buses. This is the kind of forward thinking that demonstrates--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beauce.
Alphonse DesjardinsHon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, Friday November 5, 2004, marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of the founder of the caisses populaires, Alphonse Desjardins, considered the father of the cooperative savings and loan movement in North America. It is therefore important to note the birth of this great builder.
The Mouvement des caisses Desjardins is today the largest financial institution in Quebec and the sixth largest in Canada, with 5 million member-clients and total assets in excess of $100 billion. Its strength depends on the skill and commitment of its 38,000-plus employees and close to 7,500 elected directors.
The model designed by Alphonse Desjardins has spread to the United States and English Canada, where there are several major networks of credit unions.
In Beauce alone the caisses Desjardins employ 737 people and have contributed this past year close to $1 million to the community development fund and in sponsorships and donations.
Alphonse Desjardins was a man with a strong vision for the world, and his vision lives on.
Veterans WeekMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this Veterans' Week, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this year marks the 60th anniversary of the Italian campaign, which took place from 1943 to 1945.
Close to 100,000 of our brave compatriots were involved in this campaign. Allied troops landed in Sicily in 1943, where they had to contend with the dust and heat and the mountainous terrain in order to reach the towns and villages of Italy. Let us remember today the sacrifices made by these heroes who served their country and the cause of human rights and freedom. I salute them all.
As hon. members are aware, a number of my constituents in the riding of Alfred-Pellan are originally from Italy. They have come to realize how staunchly we defend the values we hold dear, and together we shall build a better future for Quebec. I am proud of their contribution to our society and very grateful as well.
OsteoporosisMs. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November is Osteoporosis Awareness Month. Osteoporosis, currently affecting 1.4 million Canadians, is a disease that makes bones fragile and more likely to fracture. These fractures most commonly occur in the spine, hip and wrist. As a result, people affected by osteoporosis often require hospitalization and surgery.
Osteoporosis is referred to as the silent thief because no symptoms are apparent until a fracture occurs. Luckily, once diagnosed, there is a variety of drug treatments that will help prevent further loss of bone density. A diet rich in calcium and vitamin D is also recommended for treatment and prevention of this disease.
I would like to recognize the contribution of many charities including the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. These organizations strive to educate the public about the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and to support individuals affected by this disease.
Fixed IncomesMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, across Canada, there are seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. Many are on fixed incomes that have failed to keep up with rising expenses. The small increases in their incomes fail to keep pace with major spikes in expenses like rent, electricity and heating.
This government needs to be more proactive to ensure that those on fixed incomes are better able to address these increases faster. The lag time between cost spikes today and increases in their cheques later is creating undue hardship. Seniors in my riding are telling me that their cheques just went up $3 a month and their electricity costs have gone up $30 a month.
It benefits none of us to have our seniors skipping meals or medication just to make these budget adjustments. I know this is a problem right across Canada. For this reason, I hope this government will act soon.
Eastern Ontario DevelopmentHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I had the privilege of being in Cornwall, Ontario, for the launch of the first project of the Eastern Ontario Development Fund. This $98,000 plus project will help initiate the strategic plan for CFDCs, the Community Futures Development Corporations, in eastern Ontario.
The $10 million Eastern Ontario Development Fund was launched a week earlier on the recommendation of the mayors and reeves in the eastern part of our province, supported, of course, by the Liberal caucus of eastern Ontario.
I want to congratulate the government on this excellent initiative to further develop eastern Ontario.
ArmeniansMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November 14, I will have the opportunity to take part in the festivities for the 10th anniversary of the Armenian Community Centre in Laval and the founding of the Sourp Kevork Armenian church.
The centre promotes the rights and interests of the Armenian community in Laval. By teaching Armenian culture to young people, this centre contributes to preserving cultural identity. As well, through their charity work with the disadvantaged, they are contributing to their host country, Quebec.
The committee espouses the same values as the Bloc Québécois: justice, equality and respect.
We are very proud that in April 2003, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral succeeded in obtaining the passage of Motion M-380 to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915. We share in this goal of not forgetting this nation's great suffering and its rights and freedoms.
I want to congratulate the Armenian National Committee on its 10 years of service to the community.
Remembrance DayHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Remembrance Day approaches I would like to pay tribute to my Canadian hero. My late father served in the Argyle and Southern Highlanders in the second world war.
He landed on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, only to have his landing craft blown up and he woke up in a British hospital. He returned for the Battle of the Falaise Gap, Caen, and the liberation of Holland. He returned from the war with shrapnel badly lodged in his legs and the loss of hearing in one ear.
Yet he said he would have done it all over again in the defence of freedom and to ensure that Canadians would have a better life. He instilled in me a love of my country, and an appreciation for the valour and sacrifice that so many made and are continuing to make for Canada. I will never forget.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as this is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day I would like to pay tribute to all those who have proudly served this country in our military.
Legion halls all over this country are filled with pictures, names and memories of our brave soldiers. Making so many personal sacrifices in their lives to ensure that the rest of us can fully enjoy ours, these brave men and women fought to keep our country free, and to promote peace and security throughout the world.
At this time, when we remember the great contributions that our men and women in uniform have given us, I would also urge this government to ensure that our present generation of armed forces personnel have all the tools they need to do their job.
Our men and women in service are second to none. We owe them a great debt. The least we can do is to ensure that when we in this House call on them for duty, that we fulfill our duty by providing them with military equipment that is second to none and not just second hand.
Sports Hall of FameMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to acknowledge six outstanding Canadians who earlier this week were inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame.
Among these six individuals were: Lori Fung, one of our country's most recognized rhythmic gymnasts; Olympic medal winning track star, Donovan Bailey; and the late Jack Donohue, an icon for his leadership and promotion of basketball in Canada.
In addition, Abby Hoffman will be recognized for her accomplishments as an athlete and sport administrator, and a champion for the advancement of women in sport.
From the world of hockey, there are two legends, Larry Robinson, one of the game's great defencemen, and Scotty Bowman for his incredible contribution as a coach and administrator.
All of these individuals are heroes who have contributed to Canada's pride through the advancement of sport.
Arts and CultureMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Wendy Lill's friends, family and colleagues will gather to pay tribute to the former Dartmouth MP who endowed this chamber with creativity, compassion and dignity.
Wendy Lill brought national attention to challenges facing Canadians living with disabilities; worked relentlessly to establish a parliamentary committee on persons living with disabilities.
This talented playwright turned parliamentarian earned affection and acclaim as an articulate champion of Canadian arts and culture. Wendy Lill's successor stated in this House yesterday:

Her tireless efforts to help the poor and the disadvantaged are causes we all should champion.

Let us translate Wendy's extraordinary work in Parliament into a lasting legacy by taking up these worthy causes with the same spirit and tenacity demonstrated by this wonderful, remarkable woman.
Remembrance DayMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Remembrance Day approaches, I rise today to pay tribute to those Canadians who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our nation.
From Vimy Ridge to Dieppe, from Juno Beach to Korea, from Suez to Kabul, Canadians have always heeded the call to defend peace.
On November 11 we will pause at war memorials around the country and think of those who did not come home. We will think of those for whom Canada meant so much that they were willing to lay down their lives in her defence.
Recently we saw some of our veterans of the Italian campaign return to Ortona for the 60th anniversary of that bloody battle.
On behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells, allow me to thank all our veterans, but most especially those who did not return home.
Lest we forget.
CascadesMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention the 40th anniversary of an outstanding Quebec business.
The Cascades group, founded by Bernard Lemaire in Kingsey Falls in 1964, with only 12 employees, is now among North America's leaders in the manufacturing of packaging products, tissue paper and specialized fine papers. It now relies on a workforce of 15,000 employees in nearly 150 units located in Quebec, Canada, the United States, France, England, Germany and Sweden.
Cascades is a major international company that recycles more than two million tons of paper and board annually. Leading edge de-inking technology and sustained research and development enable Cascades to create innovative, high-value-added products.
I want to congratulate the brothers who built the company, Bernard, Laurent and Alain Lemaire, and all their employees on their success and their contribution to Quebec's economic development.
Canadian FlagMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were outraged that the member of Parliament for Richmond—Arthabaska in Quebec would put politics ahead of patriotism. He told Richmond's Royal Canadian Legion that it would not get a Canadian flag for Remembrance Day.
The Conservative Party of Canada is proud of our veterans and those who continue to make sacrifices for our country around the world. That is why my leader has already acted to send 10 Canadian flags to the legion in question.
Our veterans risked their lives, lost limbs, suffered untold trauma and pain so that this Bloc politician would have the freedom to stand in the House, indeed so that freedom would stand forever.
It is the responsibility of all members to serve all their constituents, especially the veterans.
The least we can do is put our politics aside and put our veterans first.
Let us never forget.
Gennum CorporationHon. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 10, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce will give its large business award to Gennum Corporation.
Gennum is headquartered in Burlington and it won in April of this year the Burlington Chamber of Commerce innovative technology award.
Gennum was chosen from a record number of nominations. It was singled out for its performance and achievements in sales, in innovation, in entrepreneurship and overall business excellence.
Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Burlington, Gennum makes components for specialized audio and video applications through two divisions: the video productions division and the hearing instrument division. It has a design centre in Ottawa, subsidiaries in Japan and the U.K., and it employs over 600 people under the leadership of Ian McWalter.
I offer my congratulations to all the employees of Gennum who work hard to bring innovation right around the world, who distinguish themselves and our community and who contribute invaluably to our general community.
Auto TheftMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the voters of Surrey North for returning me to this place. I am inspired by the confidence they have shown in me.
My purpose for rising today is to commend the residents of Surrey and our law enforcement community for being diligent and working together to curb auto theft in our city.
Members may be aware from past comments in this place that in recent years Surrey has suffered some of the highest rates of auto theft in North America.
Our police point out that residents have played a key role in reducing the problem by locking their vehicles, ensuring that nothing of value is left in them and using anti-theft devices.
For their part, the police have implemented a number of programs, not the least of which is the use of bait cars, a strategy which has proven exceptionally effective. They have also turned up the heat on repeat offenders.
The substantial decrease in auto theft in Surrey in the first half of this year shows us that a community working together can make a difference.

Oral Question Period
Natural ResourcesMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we engaged in what I would describe as a very productive debate, a motion moved by the opposition leader to provide the Prime Minister with the ability to provide Nova Scotia and Newfoundland with 100% of their offshore revenues from their oil and gas. Most members of the House, including members on the government side, spoke favourably of the motion.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to commit today to live up to the Prime Minister's promise and to communicate this directly with Premiers Hamm and Williams, and sign a deal to do just that?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that last evening I had a very lengthy conversation with Minister Sullivan from Newfoundland. Discussion between the governments is continuing. I think all of us want to achieve the very best possible result and we will work toward that in a very constructive frame of mind.
Sponsorship ProgramPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that.
My supplementary question deals with a 1995 letter from businessman Paul Pednault, who complained of the Minister of Finance's office breaking Treasury Board rules on contracting, and he did so with a degree of expertise on these rules.
Mr. Pednault was a private sector member of the government's own selection committee for ad agencies. He noted that all departments followed Treasury Board rules, except the finance department which picked companies based on political affiliation.
What did the Prime Minister, the man who was going to end political cronyism, do when he found out that his own office was engaging in the activity of political cronyism?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the opposition members are getting it wrong. They were wrong on Francis Fox. They were wrong when they accused the Prime Minister of personally making phone calls. They were wrong in saying that only Liberals knew about the sponsorship program. Yesterday they wrongfully accused Terrie O'Leary of intervening in the awarding of a contract.
Why do they not just get it right, support the work of Justice Gomery and stop, on a day to day basis, making errors by manipulatively commenting on selective testimony?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the deflections from a political deflector are wearing a little thin.
Justice Gomery has said clearly that research contracts are not part of his mandate at the inquiry. Documents released at the Gomery commission indicate that a number of sole source research contracts were directed to Earnscliffe by the current Prime Minister's Office.
Did the Prime Minister ever inquire as to whether Treasury Board rules were being followed with respect to Earnscliffe or the ad agencies, and if he did not inquire, why not?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the hon. member's question, but I think he might be considered to be a defective politician in fact.
I draw to the hon. member's attention an article in today's Globe and Mail :

Judge Gomery said his mandate does not include polling contracts, but he said he will think about admitting further evidence on the Finance contracts to clear the air.

He went further. He said specifically:

The mention of political interference by the Department of Finance makes headlines. If the statement is made and is left there, it is left to the media and the public to speculate.

He further stated that next week he will be making a decision about this issue.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing confidence in the Prime Minister because of his failure to stand in the House and answer direct allegations concerning his involvement in directing contracts to political friends. A simple denial would in no way undermine the Gomery commission's work because, as Justice Gomery has already stated, research contracts are beyond his mandate.
Will the Prime Minister or his designate stand in the House today and answer this simple question? Did the Prime Minister or his staff have any involvement in directing contracts to political friends, yes or no?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, yesterday opposition members accused Terrie O'Leary of interfering in the awarding of a contract and in fact they were wrong. That was false. They are using the floor of the House of Commons and the rights and privileges of members of Parliament to conduct some sort of witch hunt to scurrilously attack the reputations of individuals who do not deserve this kind of treatment.
If the opposition members were doing their job, they would actually respect their positions, respect the independence of a judicial inquiry and allow Justice Gomery to do his work.
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, evidence confirms that senior Liberals were heavily involved in the sponsorship scandal. Canadians are demanding answers as to the involvement of the current Prime Minister.
We know there are written documents complaining that the then minister of finance was breaking the rules in the awarding of contracts and that his Department of Finance was the only department to do so.
Does the Prime Minister continue to say that he knew nothing about rules being broken?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is commenting on yesterday morning's testimony. Presumably, he was having his nap in the afternoon and he missed the afternoon's testimony. The witness yesterday afternoon said, “I want to correct what he had said in the morning. No department interfered in the selection process”.
Perhaps if the hon. member wants to comment on any testimony in the morning, he ought to stop napping in the afternoons and watch the full testimony, or even better, wait for the full report of Justice Gomery and look forward to receiving the truth on behalf of Canadians.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the Gomery commission Charles Guité stated that only one minister's office had been involved in political interference, that this interference concerned a research contract, which was the specialty of Earnscliffe, and that this minister's office was that of the finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister.
In light of this testimony, which is confirmed by the memo of May 30, 1994, will the Liberals recognize that, in the Prime Minister's name, his former executive assistant, Terrie O'Leary, interfered politically for the benefit of the Ekos and Earnscliffe group?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member is making the same error by commenting on selective testimony. Again, I will bring to her attention the truth that was in today's Ottawa Citizen . It said:

After reviewing documents, [the witness] told the inquiry he had confused this memo and Finance had not meddled in the competition afterall

He went further and said, “I want to correct what I said this morning. No department interfered in the selection process. I just want to clear it for the record”.
Why does the opposition not wait for the full truth instead of continuing to make these errors and attack people's reputations?
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, not only is there clear evidence that there was interference before the awarding of contracts, but there also was interference after.
How can the Prime Minister say that there was no interference “after”, when a document from Public Works shows that the original contract was split in two to give Earnscliffe an advantage, at the request of the Department of Finance?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, again, yesterday the witness admitted he was wrong. It would be great if the opposition were, from time to time, able to admit when it is wrong and stop besmirching and impugning the reputations of individuals who do not deserve this type of treatment: to have their reputations sullied by unfair and inaccurate commentary on a day to day basis by members of Parliament who were chosen by their electors to represent their interests and defend Canadian values. This is absolutely inappropriate, and opposition members ought to do the right thing and let Justice Gomery do his work.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one may try to discredit Charles Guité's testimony all one wants, but one cannot erase the tracks left by the Gomery commission's document and Terrie O'Leary's memorandum showing that there was interference on the part of the finance department.
Will the Prime Minister continue denying the facts, when it is in black and white in official documents that there was interference?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that any intervention was to broaden the competition to ensure greater competition, greater value for tax dollars and better results for Canadians. That is not interfering in the contractual process. That is creating more competition, which is exactly what we ought to do in our procurement processes on an ongoing basis.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister argued in the House that the whole file was entirely handled by officials. But the documents are telling a different story.
How can the Prime Minister stand behind such statements in the light of the memorandum from his own chief of staff relaying the finance minister's preferences concerning the award of research contracts?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot understand what the hon. member would have against a competitive process. I cannot understand why the hon. member would be adverse to anybody, working on behalf of the Government of Canada or the Department of Finance, who wanted to expand competition to achieve greater value on behalf of Canadians and greater fairness in the procurement process. What is wrong with that?
National DefenceAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, Liberals are refusing to let Canadians have their say before they drag us into George Bush's missile madness. Why? Because the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to know the real cost and dangers of Canadian participation.
The government now wants a vote in Parliament only after Canada signs on to Bush's next arms race.
Will the government ensure there will be no Canadian commitment to missile defence participation until Canadians have their say and only then, after a vote takes place in this Parliament?
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the government is very interested in the views of this House and the views of the public. That is why we are committed to having a vote in the House on this issue. I look forward to the input from all members of the House on this important issue.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want our policies guided by Canadian values, not Bush's. They do not want tax dollars spent on shilling for weapons in space.
James Fergusson was in town this week shilling for a new arms race. He calls outer space “the fourth dimension of war”. He actually said that there is great political benefits to this.
How can the Prime Minister defend bankrolling Fergusson's star wars lobbying? Why is the government paying cheerleaders for George Bush's weaponization of space?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member should start dealing with the facts on BMD. BMD is a defensive issue. Beyond that, the government is very interested in the views of all members of the House. It wants input from all members as well as the public.
I want to reiterate that the government has not made a decision on BMD at this point in time. First and foremost is the security of Canada and Canadians and the government will continue to do all it can to ensure that the obligation is met.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, years ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans failed to correct a very obvious contradiction in the description of a fishing zone off Prince Edward Island. It had one version in English and a completely different version in French. This contradiction has now caused hard feelings between fishermen in P.E.I. and in New Brunswick. Tempers are rising. The situation is getting very controversial.
DFO created this problem. Will the minister now fix it?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should know that there are hot feelings in Prince Edward Island on this issue. It is important to speak to the issue in a responsible way, and not act to try to raise the temperature even higher than it already is.
The fact is herring stocks are very healthy. They were so healthy that according to our science, the total allowable catch was increased by 10,000 tonnes this year.
There was a line for a year. Prior to that there was a closure one month a year during the August-September period, not during the period we are talking about now when the migratory stocks are going across that area. It is really apples and oranges.
Mirabel AirportPierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the people of Quebec saw the curtain come down on a sad vaudeville act that had been playing for more than 30 years. The social and economic costs of this Liberal fiasco just kept rising: tenant farmers, decimated families, businesses destroyed.
Will there ever be a minister with enough courage to show a little respect for all those who have been hurt by Liberal planning errors?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As far as the expropriations that have taken place in Mirabel are concerned, it will be possible, of course, to find alternate use for the land and the airport. Cargo traffic is handled through Mirabel and is a great success. Bombardier has facilities in Mirabel and is successful. We hope that it will be even more successful in building and testing its aircraft.
The Montreal airports authority has a master plan taking us to 2023, and we do not plan to dispose of any land—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Government ContractsAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it has re-awarded the relocation contract to Royal LePage for almost $155 million. Given the Liberal track record on fulfilling promises, the House will need more than just its pledge that the process will be fair and impartial.
The Minister of Public Works has stated that he will be monitoring the contract on an ongoing basis to ensure fairness. Will the minister commit to providing Parliament with progress reports on the monitoring of the contract or will it once again take an Auditor General's report to find out how Liberal deals are made?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the contract deals with the overall management of the Government of Canada's relocation services for our public servants. A list is maintained of 14,000 subcontractors who comply with our policies and agree to our fee structure. Those names are provided to Government of Canada employees when they need relocation services. We will be monitoring on an ongoing basis, as the hon. member alluded to, the compliance to that. We look forward to discussing those results, particularly with the committee.
Dave Chatters: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works is misleading Canadians. The relocation contract for five years is over $770 million, not the $155 million which he indicated. If the minister is trying to hide the full amount of the contract, what else is he hiding from Parliament? I challenge the minister to prove that the process was open and transparent by tabling all the documents related to the selection process and contract.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this contract is for approximately $155 million. The hon. member may be confusing the information relative to flow through benefits that can go to a range of subcontractors, including real estate agents and appraisers, across the country. I think that is where he is making an error in his question.
Beyond that, I can assure the hon. member that this was a fair and open process and that Canadian public servants will get the relocation services they need with the best possible value for Canadian taxpayers.
National DefenceOdina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, a poll shows that 65% of Quebeckers are opposed to the missile defence shield. However, the Minister of National Defence said that, personally, he would prefer that the House vote on this issue after, rather than before an agreement is signed.
How does the minister explain that he will not respect the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, to the effect that there should be a vote in the House of Commons before the government makes a final decision on the missile defence shield?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's commitment, as reflected in the throne speech, is that, indeed, the House will have an opportunity to vote on this issue, and the government fully intends to respect this commitment.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of National Defence realize that, not only he is not respecting the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne, but he is also not taking into consideration the opinion of Quebeckers and he will pay a political price in Quebec, because he stubbornly refuses to have a vote on the missile defence shield?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the question is the same as the previous one put by the hon. member.
The government fully intends to respect the commitment made, namely to have the House vote on this issue in due course.
Child CareMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Minister Claude Béchard of Quebec reaffirmed his position that the federal government should hand over the funding earmarked for child care with no strings attached. The Minister of Social Development, on the other hand, felt it was too soon to be talking money; he was still at the stage of discussing principles.
When the minister says it is too soon, are we to take it that he is questioning the Prime Minister's commitments and that there will be strings attached to the money that goes to Quebec for child care?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Béchard said earlier, the question of funding was not discussed at the meeting and this was the beginning of a process. There will be another meeting in January. All the provinces will be at that meeting, and Quebec will be at that meeting as well.
We had great success in September with the health accord, and I am convinced we will be able to find an agreement with the government of Quebec.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the meeting at the beginning of the week with the ministers responsible for child care was about principles. Quebec's position is clear: an unconditional right to opt out with full compensation. That is one principle.
Can the minister make a commitment to retain that principle in the planned program for child care in Quebec?
Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same answer to the same question: that as Monsieur Béchard said, the question of funding was not discussed and there will be another meeting in January and all the provinces will be there. I am convinced that as we did in September we will be able to find an agreement with the Government of Quebec.
Crown CorporationsMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on March 15, the President of the Treasury Board announced new rules pertaining to the appointment process for the top executives of crown corporations. Yet in a letter sent to Canada Post executives, the minister outlined a remarkably different process to replace the much maligned chair of Canada Post.
Canadians are tired of cronyism at crown corporations, yet the President of the Treasury Board ensured that cronyism flourished when he allowed his rules to be broken. Why did the President of the Treasury Board covertly instruct crown corporations to follow a weaker set of rules?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have 46 crowns that range in size from Canada Post, which is a $6 billion a year corporation, to a parking garage in Toronto. The reality is that we have to have a range of solutions for them. What works for one does not work for the other.
As far as the issue of Mr. Feeney goes, if the member reads the testimony or the comments of his own members before that committee, they went to some length to state the excellent qualifications he had.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, it is “highly irresponsible” for the member for Mississauga--Erindale “to say things that are so clearly detrimental to our interests. She's done this several times”. Its president says to “put her out of caucus”.
The head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives says:

The real issue is that she's allowed to get away with it. The Prime Minister is the chief and yes, it's his fault. The buck stops with him....He should dump her.

When will the Prime Minister show some leadership and remove her from caucus?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that the Prime Minister has stated without reservation that the comments of the member in question do not represent the views of this government. They do not represent the views of our caucus.
Indeed, I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the House, all ministers and caucus members, have worked hard with our counterparts in the United States. Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to the vice-president, Mr. Cheney. I have invited him to come to Canada for an official visit. I think it is fair to say that our relations--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vegreville-Wainwright.
AgricultureMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has stood by and watched for months now as the top brass at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have prevented the Blue Mountain packing plant from opening. Cattlemen desperately need this plant. It is ready to go. Inspectors on the ground have said so. The government continues to be part of the problem instead of the solution.
In fact, how many plants has the CFIA approved in western Canada in the 18 months since the BSE crisis hit? The answer is none. Why is that?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of the issue the hon. member talks about. In fact, I have talked to some of the investors who are involved. CFIA has a job to do and that is the protection of food and safety and the security of food for Canadians and in terms of our exports. It has set up a process in which it will send an expert out to the plant on Monday to try to settle the issues on the ground, but the bottom line has to be the protection of the food and security of Canadians and in terms of our exports around the world.
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thousands of livestock producers in my riding and across this country are suffering from this Liberal government's complete failure to address the BSE crisis. It has consistently used the American election as an excuse for not challenging the border closure. With the U.S. election now over, this government can no longer stall in taking further action on the BSE crisis.
I ask the agriculture minister, why has this government refused to stand with producers by taking effective trade action through the WTO or NAFTA?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, if there has ever been a government that has stood with its producers on a tough issue, this is the government that has. Not only have we made 150 interventions with the Americans, with officials and regulatory authorities, we have actually, with the provinces, put $2.3 billion of ad hoc programming on top of the regular safety nets for producers.
We recognize that there is a difficult situation out there and we are working with producers to cure it. We are trying to increase the slaughter capacity. We are trying to improve the market with the fed and feeder set-aside programs and--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa South.
The EnvironmentMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill to ratify the Kyoto protocol.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us his reaction to this action by the Russian president, which represents a crucial step for Russia and makes it possible for the protocol to take effect next year?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada wishes to congratulate the Russian president. Canada has played a key role in the design and negotiations leading to the Kyoto protocol, and ratified it with pride, as a good world citizen. With the Russian ratification of the protocol, which will be taking effect shortly, Canada is more determined than ever to implement the protocol and do its share for the sake of our planet and our children's future.
TransportMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Currently security clearance policies are under development with the marine facilities restricted access program. Longshore workers who are suspected of being associated with a criminal organization, suspected of being associated with the misuse of port facilities, or suspected of having been associated with anyone who has done those things could be denied clearance to work.
Will the minister abandon this course and ensure reasonable security considerations based on actual criminal convictions and not mere suspicions about a worker's character?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we are developing this process for background checks. We want to make sure our ports are secure. We will do whatever we have to do to make sure that the personnel working in those installations are of good background and in good standing. We are consulting with the unions. I want to report to the House that I met the president of the Teamsters, for example, and he assured me that his members are going to collaborate with this background checking. We are very happy that this file is progressing very well.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, rather than treating all workers as potential criminals, the minister should deal with criminal activity that actually occurs.
This proposal includes other questionable requirements. Workers will have to report their complexion, their past travel outside of Canada, and information on their spouse and even their in-laws. Denial can lead to loss of their job. The only appeal is to the minister himself. Will the minister immediately withdraw this proposal and go back to the drawing board for a plan that respects and protects the basic rights of Canadian workers?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has to realize that we are working at the drawing board right now. What we are trying to do is make sure that the ports in Canada are safe and secure. We are going to work at it, but we are not going to protect any criminals that would be working and putting Canada's security at risk. We are not going to accept that at our ports.
We are working at it. We are at the drawing board and we will make sure that we protect our borders and our ports. Perhaps the hon. member does not like it, but we have to make sure that we have a safe process, and we will get it.
AgricultureMr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, beef producers devastated by the BSE disaster are being forced to decide whether or not they can afford to sign up for the CAIS program before the November 30 deadline. This government has made participation in CAIS a condition for receiving portions of the BSE aid money announced in September.
This government is forcing beef producers to pony up the dough in order to access disaster relief and it is clearly imposing hardship on producers. My question is for the agriculture minister or his designate. What will he do to help farmers who cannot afford to enroll in the CAIS program? And when will he commit to getting rid of the cash deposit?
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should go back to the record and look at the minister's previous answers on the cash deposit and he will recognize where that one is at.
In terms of producers, who we recognize are facing financial difficulty, we have made the announcement of September 10, which was to increase our slaughter capacity, and we brought into place a fed cattle and a feeder cattle program so that producers can get better prices out of the marketplace. We have introduced other programs, the cull cow program--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, CAIS was never intended as disaster relief. It was meant to even out cashflow in a business as usual environment. As it turns out, CAIS is actually failing two groups of farmers: first, the farmers who took money out of their own pockets to sign up for CAIS and still have not received any assistance; and second, farmers who could not afford the deposit in the first place and are now ineligible for the program.
BSE is not business as usual. It is a national disaster. We would not demand that flood victims put up their own money in order to be eligible for flood relief. Why does the government continue to rely on this failed program?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I would think adding with the provinces over $2 billion over and above CAIS is really not relying on that program in its entirety. We recognized that there had to be ad hoc programming and we went out there and did it. As I said, we are trying to manoeuvre the market price so that producers can get prices out of the marketplace. We are trying to increase the slaughter capacity so we can have a made in Canada solution. We are working with the United States and with Japan and others to find other markets for our beef. We are there for producers--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cambridge.
Textile and Clothing IndustryMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week when I asked the Minister of Finance when he would implement the recommendations of an all-party committee for the apparel industry, all he could do was admit that it has been sitting on his desk for two months. Those recommendations also expire in December.
The minister has had enough time to implement the democracy of that committee. When I meet with the workers in my riding of Cambridge next week, can I tell them that their jobs are safe, yes or no?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the government is indeed working very hard on this file: my department with the Department of Industry and with many members in our caucus who are very concerned about the future impacts. We are looking for the appropriate way to make sure that the textile and apparel industry in Canada is properly supported.
In the meantime, I am pleased to report to the House that as of this morning employment increased in Canada in the month of October by another 34,000 jobs, following 43,000 jobs in September, for a total of 190,000 new positions this year.
National DefenceMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week this government raised the rental prices on military housing by up to $100 a month. Often these housing units are substandard.
While spending $100 million for luxury jets for ministers, this government is forcing our military to rely on programs such as the one at CFB Trenton, where the Christmastime adopt a family program provides a few holiday offerings for those struggling to make ends meet. Why is the Minister of National Defence playing Scrooge by raising the rent for our hard-working military personnel at what should be such a joyous time of year?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been going on for some time. The Minister of National Defence is working with the President of the Treasury Board to deal with the situation. We are looking into it right now.
Textile and Clothing IndustryMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for months now, the representatives of the textile industry have been denouncing the federal government's wait and see attitude and asking for strong intervention to help the industry get through this crisis. The affected jobs in this sector number in the thousands, and that has an impact on the economy of several regions of Quebec.
What is the government waiting for to introduce the safeguards proposed by the Bloc Québécois among others?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the issues affecting the textile industry and the apparel industry in Canada are complex and interconnected. Some benefit from tariffs, some do not. Some benefit from tariff relief, some do not.
We are trying to work our way through this complex collection of issues and existing support measures to ensure that we provide the right kind of support to our industry, support that gives real hope and opportunity to Canadian workers, including workers in Quebec.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the American owners of textile companies operating in Canada have been roundly criticizing the finance minister's behaviour. In May, John Heldrich of Swift Denim wrote to him, saying that the lifting of tariff barriers would have an impact on the market and a direct negative impact on the factory in Drummondville. Six hundred jobs have already been lost there. Sixty more people were let go last week.
How does the minister respond to John Heldrich? What does he have to say to the workers at Swift Denim?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would be very happy to receive that representation. I have not had the opportunity to see it personally yet, but I am sure it is on the way to me. In the meantime I would say to the member and others in the House, including many on the government side, that we are very anxious to ensure a secure and prosperous future for the textile and apparel industry.
The issues are not simple ones. They require a thoughtful approach. We are applying that approach and we expect to achieve success.
TaxationMr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for the past two years federal tax collectors have been trying to kill junior hockey in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Finance has not lifted a single finger to bring relief to this disgraceful condition. I would ask the self-proclaimed champion of Saskatchewan, the Minister of Finance, why he has not done a single thing to rectify this appalling situation.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, the administration of tax rules falls to the Minister of National Revenue, not the Minister of Finance. It would be helpful if he understood the machinery of government.
In the last number of months I have had the opportunity to make representations to the Minister of National Revenue on behalf of Saskatchewan sports organizations. I am also pleased to say that the government is making very sure that the rules apply in an equitable and fair-minded fashion, evenly and fairly to all Canadians with no discriminatory impact in Saskatchewan or anywhere.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I want to make something perfectly clear to the minister. The only junior A teams in Canada that for the last two years have been targeted by the tax collectors are Saskatchewan teams. The tax collectors are literally sending Saskatchewan junior hockey teams into bankruptcy.
The Liberal government should be ashamed of itself. Again I ask the Minister of Finance, the only government member from Saskatchewan, why he has been--
The Speaker: I remind hon. members that questions to regional ministers or ministers from a region are not relevant. Questions are supposed to go to their departmental responsibilities. The Minister of Finance may wish to answer this question because it does appear to deal with taxation, but as he has indicated, this might be one of enforcement which might be under national revenue. However the Minister of Finance is rising and I will allow him to answer.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a representation. Some others in Saskatchewan have made the same representation. Some have made the opposite representation actually. I am anxious to ensure on behalf of the Government of Canada that all tax rules and regulations are applied properly and fairly.
Quite frankly at the end of the day when we stack up political records, one against the other, I will match the hon. gentleman any day and I will beat him five times to Sunday.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. We are moving on to the next question. That one is finished. The hon. member for Pontiac has the floor now.
Canadian HeritageMr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I would encourage the members who wish to discuss this issue to do so perhaps in the foyer. There are some television cameras out there and members might enjoy an appearance there. However in the House the hon. member for Pontiac has the floor and he would like to ask a question without being interrupted.
David Smith: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell this House about the public's worries regarding the Bloc Québécois's refusal to distribute flags to veterans who wish to honour the memory of their brothers in arms who gave their lives for our freedom?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know because we read it in the papers that certain sovereignist members refuse to give Canadian flags to their constituents who have requested them. Now, we know that every member has a limited number of flags.
Consequently, I am officially asking Bloc members to give up their quota of flags so that I can distribute them to the legions and veterans who want these flags and who risked their lives under the flag of Canada.
Drug StrategyMr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Health Canada web page includes the national drug strategy and it is only three paragraphs. Its quoted goal is to reduce the demand for drugs, yet the Liberal government has just tabled Bill C-17 which seeks to decriminalize large amounts of marijuana. It is a fact that this will increase drug usage and the demand for the illegal production of marijuana.
When will the government begin to show some true leadership and create a national drug strategy that addresses the marijuana problem?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that we have had for a long time in this country a centre for drug abuse. There is indeed ongoing monitoring, trying to make sure that people live healthy lives.
There is going to be an increase in the drug strategy because we want to protect our kids and try to keep all Canadians healthy for as long as possible. We are committed to that and that is what my job is.
JusticeJames Moore: Mr. Speaker, according to new research more than one in four hospitals reported that sexual assaults are drug induced. The use of date rape drugs to sexually assault and rape women is dramatically increasing across Canada. Cowards are drugging women, raping and sexually assaulting them and leaving them in gutters for dead. For over two years I and the Conservative Party have been asking the government to table legislation to crack down on the use of date rape drugs, but the government has done nothing to address this problem.
I want to know from the government, is it preparing legislation to protect women from the cowards who sexually assault and abuse women with date rape drugs, yes or no?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, such legislation already exists. A person who is drugged is not capable of consenting. Therefore, any sexual activity with such a person is already a sexual assault under Canadian law.
Older WorkersRaynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, not only does the government refuse to support vulnerable industries such as textiles and fisheries but, in 1997, the current Prime Minister abolished POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which allowed workers over 55 to receive benefits until they reached retirement age.
Since all the members from Quebec and even the Liberal caucus are calling for the reinstatement of a program for older workers who cannot be retrained, what is the government waiting for to re-establish an improved POWA that would cover all workers in Quebec?
Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that older workers who are laid off have more difficulty finding new work. On May 11, 2004 we announced that an additional $5 million in federal funding has been offered to the provinces and territories that participated in the older workers pilot projects initiative last year.
Since 1999 the Government of Canada has invested $50 million for the older workers pilot projects and $22 million for 67 projects in Quebec to assist older workers. In Quebec 23,900 jobs have been created this year so far for workers aged 55--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Welland.
MunicipalitiesMr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian municipalities are beginning their budget process for the 2005 fiscal year. The Government of Canada has announced very positive initiatives that will help communities across this country.
My question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. Is the government communicating with municipalities about the impact of federal programs on local government in advance of their budgetary exercise and more important, when will this money flow to them?
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Welland, who, like all the members on this side of the House, has always shown a great interest in helping communities and cities.
As for the GST, last year we promised $7 billion in concrete assistance to cities and communities over a period of 10 years. We have made commitments to them in the order of $12 billion. The Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities is negotiating with the municipalities and cities to implement new programs, including the gas tax transfer over several years. These are just some of the significant measures for supporting the development of our cities and communities.

Routine Proceedings
Certificate of NominationHon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a certificate of nomination. Pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), this certificate stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Law Enforcement Justification ProvisionsHon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table the 2004 annual report by the RCMP on the law enforcement justification provisions.
Committees of the HouseDavid McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 26, 2004, the committee has considered Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and agreed on Thursday, November 4, 2004 to report it without amendment.
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning chapter 3, the sponsorship program; chapter 4, advertising activities; and chapter 5, management of public opinion research of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada referred to the committee on February 10, 2004 and privilege, powers and immunities of the House of Commons.
The report is in response to the request by Mr. Justice Gomery, the commissioner for the commission of inquiry, who asked the House to consider whether transcripts of the hearings of the public accounts committee may be received in evidence if a witness makes a sworn statement before the commission of inquiry that is inconsistent with a statement previously made by that witness before the public accounts committee.
Criminal CodeMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Criminal Code (age of consent) and to amend another act in consequence.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and reintroduce this bill from the past. It is something that Canadians have been calling for all across the country in huge majorities. It is supported by the police associations across the land, victims groups and parent organizations.
It is a bill that would raise the age of consent from the present 14 years of age to 16 years of age. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. I hope that somehow or other this can be addressed either through this private member's bill or through wise legislation from the government.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Definition of Marriage ActMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage and to preserve ceremonial rights.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to introduce this private member's bill, to be known as the definition of marriage act.
As we all know in the House, marriage is a vital and important institution in our society. I am introducing this bill so that the definition of marriage can be determined, as it should be, by allowing duly elected parliamentarians representing their constituents to vote on the matter.
There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue but now is not the time to shirk our responsibilities as parliamentarians. We were elected to make tough choices for the country and Canadians expect that their parliamentarians will face these decisions in a responsible and direct manner.
I look forward to hearing from my fellow members of Parliament and to hearing the genuine views of their constituents on this issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Supreme Court ActDave Chatters: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (constitutional validity of any Act).

Mr. Speaker, law-making is the role of Parliament. Unfortunately, since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have taken the role of Parliament in establishing law.
This act would amend the Supreme Court Act that whenever there is a question before the court that deals with constitutionality, the court would be required to take the debates and intent of Parliament into account. It would also amend the act so that unless a decision is unanimous, the constitutional decision would not be a precedent setting decision, and would only apply to the case before the court.
This process would ensure the intent of Parliament is not ignored and would not allow the courts to write their beliefs into law when there is a split decision on the court.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax ActDave Chatters: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tuition credit and education credit).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce a bill that I introduced in the previous Parliament. After consulting with the Alberta music teachers association and the Canadian music teachers association, it is an honour for me to re-introduce my private member's bill which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by extending tuition credit and education credit to individuals who follow a formal course of instruction provided by a qualified music instructor.
At the present time, music instructors who do not teach in recognized institutions of higher learning are ineligible to provide their students with this benefit, despite the fact that their training could be the same or more advanced than an instructor in an institution. Certainly, the greater benefit to students is no less whether or not they are enrolled in a recognized institution.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActBill Siksay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill which would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but also strongly supported by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.
This bill, which we prefer to call the once in a lifetime bill, would allow any Canadian citizen or landed immigrant to sponsor, once in their lifetime, one family member from outside the family class as defined in the act. Specifically, this could be a son or daughter who is not a dependant and who is over 22, a brother or sister, an aunt or an uncle, a niece or a nephew, or a first cousin.
This bill would ensure that family reunification is key to immigration policies. The bill is similar to one introduced in the last Parliament by the member for Vancouver East; however, eligible family members are now more clearly defined.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsJames Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by constituents of my riding Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam and neighbouring communities. The petition addresses the growing humanitarian crisis in the Sudan. The petitioners are thankful and proud of the $25 million contribution that Canada has made to help the Sudanese peace efforts in recognition of the over 50,000 reported deaths and millions more having been forced from their homes through widespread violence.
This petition calls on Canada to send peacekeeping troops to Sudan so that Canada may work to ensure the protection of peaceful civilians until peace is realized in the region.
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that comes from a group by the name of RAIL, Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines. The undersigned are concerned about the impact of a proposed CN major intermodal terminal facility in our community and express their opposition to the development of a CN major intermodal terminal facility on the existing agricultural land.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop the development of the proposed CN, Canadian National Railway Company, major intermodal terminal facility in the Town of Milton or the surrounding area.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition containing several hundred names from the riding of Cariboo--Prince George which was begun on the initiative of Katrine Reagan of Quesnel, B.C.
Ms. Reagan is very concerned about the fact that since 1997, in the event of a marriage breakup, the parent paying spousal support is of course no longer allowed to claim that child support on his or her income tax. However, that child support is calculated on the payer's gross income, but not net income.
The petitioners with to bring to the attention of the House that a parent who has to pay child support is paying on his or her gross income and would like to see that changed in order for it to be calculated on the net income of the paying parent.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently a group of constituents known as Canadians for Justice in the Middle East visited me in my riding office and requested that I present this petition which deals with the Israeli security barrier and its impact on life in the region.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first is on the subject matter of stem cells. The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential for the cures and therapies to help Canadians. They also want to point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the subject matter of Bill C-250 which was passed in the last Parliament.
The petitioners simply want to remind the House that they feel that Bill C-250 that was passed is a dangerous piece of legislation because it would threaten all those opposed to special rights for homosexuals, including same sex marriage, with prosecution on the basis of alleged hate. This is an area of concern for them.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions.
The first is pursuant to the private member's bill that was just introduced by my colleague from Burnaby pertaining to immigration and recognition of family sponsorship.
The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to encourage the government to take action to change legislation or bring in new legislation to broaden the definition of family to include uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, children, and brothers and sisters over the age of 22, as now specified under the act. They believe this is important for the health of our community.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many individuals. It has been before this House on numerous occasions. It concerns the matter of fetal alcohol syndrome and the requirement for labels on all alcoholic beverage containers.
The petitioners comment on the fact that it has been three and a half years since Parliament passed this initiative. They would dearly like the government to act on the express wishes of Parliament and in support of the concerns of Canadians in terms of eradicating fetal alcohol syndrome from our society today.
Questions on the Order PaperPaul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. You look fine sitting there.
I am seeking your wisdom as to whether or not I have a point of order or a point of privilege, or maybe I do not have anything, but there are some serious problems developing very quickly to which we need to call attention. Employers across the country are being fined for not making remittances in the middle of the month because they did not receive their forms due to the strike.
I want to ensure that we assure these employers across Canada that we are not going to enforce penalties on these people for something they could not help.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose raises an interesting point of debate for question period perhaps, but I do not think it is either a point of order or a point of privilege. I would urge him to use other venues in the House or committee.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-9 to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
I will admit, to begin with, that I would much rather ask the following question: is there any future for the regions? For example,does Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the region from which I come, have a future? I think this is illustrative of the basic issue confronting us in connection with this bill.
It would be a good thing if the bill were aimed at improving the situation and permitting all the money allocated to local and regional development to go to Quebec, where there are resources and structures. I do not want to see what is already in place shunted aside, the CFDC and other resources.
There are certain resources already available on the federal level. I would pay acknowledge the efforts of staff, both past and present, of Economic Development Canada or the CFDC, the community futures development corporations in the Quebec region. I think there are 57 of these corporations in all and their contribution certainly deserves recognition.
In Canada, when we talk about regions, when the issue is about my region, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for instance, we can say that that word does not exist in the vocabulary. When we talk about regions in the Canadian sense of that term, we talk about Quebec as a whole. There are 18 regions in Quebec. In the federal system, one does not talk about a region per se, such as Gaspésie-les-Îles or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean or others, but about Quebec in its entirety.
When we talk about local and regional development, that is where this becomes important. One realizes that Quebec has its own specific tools, such as the local investment centres, now also called local investment funds, which revolve around various structures, headed and funded by Quebec. These tools boost local and regional development.
The bill before us is such that we find ourselves in a situation where programs are not changed, and neither are budgets. So, in my region, one realizes at the end of the day that it is possible to make considerable headway while having a very good grasp of issues as they play out in our local environment.
I draw attention here to Histoire de la Gaspésie , written by Marc Desjardins, Yves Frenette, Jules Bélanger and Bernard Hétu, a book to which something was added recently. When one looks at the history of the Gaspé region, specifically with respect to demographics, one realizes that in 1870—it was thus quite a while ago—there were 31,480 inhabitants. By 1960, the number had jumped to 104,824. Yes, we can talk about development, an increase, the demographic factor.
However, the situation today is the following. In 1960, there were 104,824 inhabitants. In 2001, there were 99,886. We are talking about the Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. In 2004, this year, the numbers are very worrisome. We are talking about approximately 97,000 inhabitants.
There is a serious decrease in population. By their very nature, figures sometimes allow us to make projections. Accordingly, looking ahead to 2021, we foresee a population of only 86,000 people in the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. This means that we are getting back to the figures prevailing in 1940. It also reflects the reality we live in, and shows that we have a very important job to do to ensure that this region as well as other Quebec regions can overcome some very serious problems, including outmigration and socio-economic challenges.
In that context, the minister's proposal is basically to create an agency responsible for I know not what exactly. In the statement or the briefing document that we received concerning the bill, the department itself mentions that this legislation does not entail any foreseeable consequence on the programming and on the present client base of the agency. What does that mean exactly? It means that we end up with a department that is already telling us that Bill C-9 will not change in any way the real tools we should use. I think that the Bloc Québécois members, at least this is my view, would rather approve a scheme to transfer the $400 million that are being spent or invested by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec so that these funds could be used by the people who work on these files, once the necessary resources and employees are transferred.
C-9 is nothing more than duplication. It also shows that we are stuck with a federal government that forgets that by creating a new structure, it is not addressing the real issues. I think the federal government should pay more attention to its own responsibilities and stick to its own jurisdiction. Speaking about responsibilities, this reminds us of the mess it made in areas like fisheries, employment insurance, VIA Rail, Air Canada, and so forth. I believe that the government could be much more effective if it paid more attention to its own responsibilities, namely in the fisheries area.
This brings me to what is going on in the fisheries. To get some idea of the problems, one only has to visit port facilities throughout Quebec. We recently had the opportunity to tour the maritime areas of Quebec. I was accompanied by the hon. member for Manicouagan and the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We saw some terrible things. We have a government, a department which does not fulfill its own obligations, namely to provide fishers and boaters, as well as all potential port users, with facilities which are well maintained and repaired.
The efforts of the Bloc Québécois in recent years helped get much more money, but not enough to deal adequately with the needs. In 2000-01, there was a $50 million budget for Canada's entire small craft harbours program. Such an amount is not only insufficient, but ludicrous. Because of this ludicrous situation, an additional amount of $20 million a year, starting in 2002, has been allocated for the next five years. The Bloc Québécois was instrumental in getting this modest budget increase.
However, the efforts made regarding this issue are really inadequate, considering the needs. Based on some estimates—and the reality may actually be even worse—we are talking about an amount of over $500 million to repair or maintain small craft harbours across Canada.
Year in and year out, the budget is only a few tens of millions of dollars. This means that we are postponing the solving of existing problems. Assuming one's real responsibilities would mean to earmark large budgets for small craft harbours.
Currently, there are some horror stories in Grande-Vallée, Rivière-au-Renard and Cannes-de-Roches, in the Gaspé Peninsula. I had the opportunity to visit some facilities and to talk to people about these issues. I can say that, when it comes to the federal government's initiatives, as they relate to its responsibilities regarding fishing infrastructures, these people do not beat around the bush and they are totally unsatisfied.
This bill does not change anything in terms of budgets and programs, and the department keeps telling us that, in the end, it will have no impact on the agency's current program and clientele. This is a bill that merely seeks to increase visibility and that will ultimately result in duplication.
This duplication will generate real problems. The real issue is demography. At the beginning of my speech, I alluded to what will happen in the regions in terms of demographics, and to the fact that, by the year 2021, the population will be the same as it was in 1940. This is not what we call progress. This is not an improvement. This is not what we call building a future, a promising one.
This is why it is very important that the federal government, considering the resources that it has available and the existing fiscal imbalance, ensures that this money can be transferred to Quebec, which can really look after our own business in a proper and responsible manner.
When it comes to examples showing what is currently happening, let me say that, unfortunately, there are many. The railway system is really in a state of neglect, or even inappropriate. Furthermore, there is passenger train service in the Gaspé Peninsula only three days a week. Service is provided only three days a week, not seven days a week. Air transport is deficient, indeed practically almost inoperable. Flight schedules are inadequate. There are few airlines to choose from, and so on.
I occasionally use air travel. Therefore, I can say that it is inaccessible because of cost. Indeed, we are not talking about a few hundred dollars, but nearly a thousand dollars to travel between Montreal and the Gaspé Peninsula, or between Montreal and the Magdalen Islands. For this price, on could easily go to Europe. That having been said, in 2004, I do not think that this reflects an honest effort or what could be a situation where proper services are offered.
There is also the employment insurance file. This is a real mess. I have had the opportunity—and that is part of my reason for being in politics—to meet a lot of people in connection with this file. This is something I have experienced myself, as a resident of the Gaspé—Magdalen Islands area, and I am experiencing it again today. In that context, when we look at the results, at the way the federal government handled its responsibilities, and the way it could have handled them, we realize that it is certainly not by introducing a bill like this one, which changes nothing and simply seeks to create duplication, that it will resolve any problem whatsoever.
This duplication shows that the new department goes far beyond the current Canada Economic Development.
We are talking about a real federal department of regional development for Quebec. The bill says that the minister shall guide, promote and coordinate federal policiesand programs in relation to the development anddiversification of the economy of the regionsof Quebec. His mandate includes all federal activities in the regions.
Accordingly, in cooperation with other concernedfederal ministers and boards and agencies, the minister shall formulate and implementpolicies, plans and integrated federalapproaches.
Integrated federal approaches says it all. That's the real issue. The minister will in fact be responsible for the impacts of all federal programs on the regions.
We certainly do not want any integrated federal approaches to the development of Quebec's regions. The regions do need an integrated development strategy, but only Quebec is able to implement it. I think this is the crux of the matter, the crux of what Bill C-9 can represent and the crux of what is fundamentally at stake here.
We already know that the Constitution gives Quebec responsibility over most matters relating to regional development. I remind hon. members of what I said at the beginning: regions for Canada and regions for Quebec are two different things.
When reference is made to regions of Canada, this certainly does not mean regions like Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, or Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for instance. It means Quebec as a whole. In Canada, the regions mean the Atlantic region—which includes more than one province—Quebec, Ontario and the west.
But when we speak of regions, we mean regions like Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where we have six RCMs, or county regional municipalities, for a population that now numbers under 100,000, as I have said. With demographic projections as they are, we obviously need a really big hand up.
I think that we owe a vote of thanks to the men and women who have worked on economic recovery plans. I will touch on the federal plans, but first I will take a moment to talk about the Quebec plan. That effort has been translated into concrete action and a plan, as far as the development of my region is concerned.
Although the figures are still pretty alarming, we have seen slightly fewer young people leaving these past few years. This positive effect on the very serious problem of our youth exodus is the result of a recovery plan that has been created and implemented by Quebec.
Now for the federal plan. Just prior to the 2000 election campaign, an announcement was made in our region about a three-year $35 million recovery plan. Three years would bring us now to the end of the program, but imagine this, over time, it has been turned into a five-year plan.
If we do the math, we see that the plan, rather than injecting $35 million into the region by March 31, 2004, has put in $13.2 million. This is an example of how this government fulfils its responsibilities. It is therefore very important to look the situation squarely in the face and ensure that help is really forthcoming to regions such as Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I presume that my colleague opposite is speaking totally in good faith, of course. However, he used the word “duplication”. I would like to ask him something. The CFDCs which he referred to have been in existence for about twenty years. Interestingly, the PQ government of the day, seven or eight years ago, annoyed because the federal government was more efficient in the field and because its efficiency ran against its own political objective, made the decision to create an organization identical to the CFDC, which excluded the federal government totally. Is that not a patent example of duplication, duplication imposed by the PQ government of the day?
I have a second question. The member across the way, just like others in his party before him, would like us to centralize the funds in Quebec, to channel all the funds toward Quebec so that the province can manage them. It so happens that Economic Development Canada manages its own programs those of other federal departments, on their behalf. I would ask my colleague opposite to show me the list of federal departments that he wants transferred to Quebec.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, as a sovereignist member of Parliament, my goal —to which I will dedicate myself actively for the following weeks, months and, maybe, years—is to make sure that Québec becomes a country able to repatriate all responsibilities so we may have all the tools we need.
Concerning duplication, it is difficult for me to fully understand the minister's reasoning. Concerning local and regional development issues, I refer him to the intervention I made a few minutes ago. I am pretty sure he heard what I said about local and regional development. I stress that “local” refers to municipalities and “regional” refers to regions like Gaspé and the islands, and not the Province of Québec, as he seems to understand. Local and regional development are part of under Québec's responsibilities. In this respect, I think that the Minister probably wants to muddy the waters to distract us from the real problem, the real issue. However, I am convinced that he will agree with me the issue is a very big one.
When it comes to a region like mine, which is facing a difficult situation demographically speaking, since population figures will be back down to 1940's level. The trend will be very difficult to revert. Just try to imagine all the work that will have to be done. Try to imagine all the effort that will be needed. I think that Quebeckers, thanks to their structures, responsibilities and past track record will succeed in meeting that enormous challenge. I am convinced that duplication, which is what Bill C-9 aims for, is not the way to resolve or contribute to resolving the problem, so that a region like mine may have a better future.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member has carefully avoided answering the very simple question I asked of him, that is, for what other departments does the CED—which acts as an agent, in fact—carry out its mandate. He does not know the answer and so he avoided answering. Does he not understand the implications of what he is proposing?
I remind him once again, furthermore, that the Canadian Constitution is extremely clear in terms of jurisdictions. He has the right to disagree with the Constitution, but not the right to be unfamiliar with it. Obviously, he does not know it very well, since section 36(1)( a) specifically enables the federal government to promote equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians and 36(1)( b ) enables it to further economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities. This refers to the whole country.
Another thing—I would like to remind my colleague that his figures may indicate some research problems, for this very simple reason. Here are the investments we made during the year from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004, and I am speaking exclusively about the Lower St. Lawrence region to begin with. Of course, I have the figures for all the regions, and I can give him those too, as we go along. The Berger Group received $688,000; PCG Systèmes d'information, $578,000; AMH Canada, $212,000; Glendein, $468,000; Saint-Alexandre, $20,000; a numbered company $152,000; Océanova Biotechnologies, $3 million; Technopole maritime du Québec, which I have visited, by the way, $2 million; ISMER at the Université du Québec à Rimouski, $2 million. When I add up all these amounts that have been allocated, and I am talking about only one year, for all CED programs put together I get a total investment in that region of nearly $15 million. Just to be perfectly clear and use the most accurate numbers, it is exactly $14,814,612. The figures provided by the hon. member do not agree with mine. I have details and evidence, which he does not.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the minister for allowing me to comment these figures. I simply want to tell him he is wrong.
He is wrong because, had he listened to my remarks carefully, he would have realized that I was talking about the recovery plan in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, a plan which was made public just before the election in 2000. The recovery plan and other actions of Canada Economic Development are not the same thing. For example, a program like the coastal Quebec fund is not a recovery plan. A recovery plan means new money.
In 2000, the government made a great deal of noise about how it would help a region in deep trouble with a recovery plan especially designed for this region and with additional funding. But now, the minister is telling us that it was not true. What was announced then was perhaps the recycling of old money, and that the $35 million could be spent, but with the contribution of existing programs.
The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine recovery plan was meant to bring in new money, not use the money that could be invested through existing programs.
The minister should do his homework. If he wants to have a frank and probably interesting discussion, I am ready to meet him at the appropriate time, here or in my region, so that we can further discuss these figures, and perhaps go beyond them.
I can tell you serious work needs to be done in my region. I think people in Quebec can do it, and do it well. Those at Canada economic development or in the CFDCs can also play a role. In that sense, I think we will eventually be able to work all together for the future of my region.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I am always afraid to run out of time before I go through everything I have to say. Therefore, please allow me to add two or three elements.
First, I would like to remind my colleague of the investments made by my department in three projects essential to the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I am referring to the TechnoCentre éolien Gaspésie, an integrated wind energy research and technology transfer centre. I think that we invested $3 million in this project. In addition, we invested another $3 million, precisely, $3.1 million, if I recall well, in the Carrefour national de l'aquaculture et des pêches. There is also the e-business centre of expertise, in which we invested $1 million. All of this as part of a clear investment strategy to promote research and develop better tools.
As far as the Gaspe Peninsula is concerned, I was referring in my speech to the Sural plant. Why a quartz plant in Cap-Chat? Despite appearances, there was an enormous potential, first, because of the Government of Quebec had incentive programs that were useful and, second, because the federal government was able to intervene.
One last thing: the member did not comment on my remark about the duplication of services provided by the CFDC for the past 20 years. For political reasons, the PQ government created a CLD at the time, which duplicated what the CFDCs were already doing, but with a different condition, that there would be no federal representation in it. That is the duplication I was talking about.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, it will take me only a few seconds to provide other numbers which exemplify very well the situation we are faced with.
The budget for Quebec is three times less generous than the one for the maritime provinces. Proportionately, the federal government invests three times less in regional development in Quebec per capita than in the maritimes. The level of support in the four maritime provinces is $164 while it is $51 in Quebec--three times less. For each unemployed person this comes to almost $3,000 as opposed to barely $1000--almost three times more.
This gives you a fairly good idea of the situation. And we could go on and on with numbers. But what would be really useful for people in the Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region would be to put an end to duplication and start cooperating with Quebec to look at the region's future and to set aside destructive--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.
It is my understanding that the purpose of the act is to promote the development and diversification of the economy in the regions of Quebec.
The NDP supports establishing the economic development agency for the regions of Quebec as an individual legal entity. We think this is making the move from a program in Industry Canada to being a stand-alone agency.
The federal government's ability to bring money into a region and decide what organizations benefit from it for many areas can be the most public example and sometimes the most controversial example of government policy. Most of the government's economic development is focused exclusively on the private sector, but there are many other organizations that can contribute to a region's prosperity.
We in the NDP would argue that Bill C-9 could be improved by specific reference to community economic development, which is what I will be focusing my remarks on this afternoon.
I did appreciate hearing from my Bloc colleague who spoke previously about some of the larger and more specific issues facing the regions of Quebec, issues like transportation, infrastructure and employment insurance polices. We in the NDP are also very concerned about addressing those issues, but this afternoon I want to talk about community economic development in particular.
In the last budget, the government promised $132 million for community economic development across the country. Community economic development is not a short term project, however. Unfortunately, that is how most government funding is promoted, in the short term category. Seventeen million dollars of the funding that was announced are planned for a two year capacity building pilot project so that the government can learn more about community economic development.
As Mike Lewis, the director of the Centre for Community Enterprise said, “This should be a part of a long term strategy, not short term project based funding if the government truly wants to build capacity in a community economic development sector”.
Focusing on short term project based funding does create capacity but it does not create trust or cooperation among community groups. What is needed instead is an integrated policy relationship where ministries and agencies allow the groups that have already done the research to educate the bureaucrats instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on short term projects that will not produce long term gain.
Now it is the chantier de l'économie sociale in Quebec that will deal with this funding through the new organization that we are debating creating today.
Community economic development is known as social economy in Quebec and has proven very successful. Overall in Quebec the social economy sector, without even counting financial co-operatives, the two largest agricultural co-ops or the community action networks, is made up of over 6,200 co-operatives and non-profit enterprises that employ 65,000 people and generate over $4.3 billion in sales. It is an important sector in the economy of Quebec.
Community economic development improves the whole community and not just the business sector. A stronger community leads directly to a stronger economy.
Community economic development uses triple bottom line accounting. It considers the environmental, the social issues and the economic factors when doing economic planning. This is a far more holistic approach to economic development.
We would like to thank the centre for community economic development at Simon Fraser University, which is in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas, for its descriptions of community economic development which we used to prepare our remarks today.
Community economic development can be described as a community based and community directed process that explicitly combines social and economic development and is directed toward fostering the economic, social, ecological and cultural well-being of communities and regions.
Community economic development has emerged as an alternative to conventional approaches to economic development. It is founded on the belief that problems facing communities, such as unemployment, poverty, job loss, environmental degradation, economic instability and loss of community control, need to be addressed in a holistic and participatory way.
The background information that the government sent out to accompany Bill C-9 talked about small and medium sized enterprises. This is a recognition that in smaller communities, unless there is a resource nearby to exploit, it will not be a large corporation that brings in the jobs but many small businesses. There is already an emphasis in the bill on smaller enterprise and that makes a connection to community economic development even more possible and, hopefully, more likely.
The following principles underline community economic development, which is an evolving and ongoing process.
Equity: Community economic development is based on the principle of fairness and the belief that community members should have equitable access to community decision making processes, resources and the benefits of community economic development projects.
Participation: Community economic development encourages the active participation of all members of the community in the planning, decision making and benefits of community economic development initiatives and works to remove the barriers that limit the participation of marginalized citizens.
Community building: Community economic development seeks a sense of community by fostering relationships of acceptance, understanding and mutual respect.
Cooperation and collaboration: Community economic development recognizes that there are important linkages and connections between communities and regions and that many problems cannot be addressed in isolation. Community economic development, therefore, encourages relationships based on cooperation and collaboration.
Self-reliance and community control: Community economic development builds on local strengths, creativity and resources, and actively seeks to decrease dependency on invulnerability to economic interests outside the community and region. Furthermore, community economic development supports decentralized, non-hierarchical decision making processes that strengthen the autonomy of the individual, the community and the region.
Integration: Community economic development recognizes that the healthy development of communities requires a holistic approach that addresses the social, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions of community well-being.
Interdependence: Community economic development recognizes that the local community exists within the context of a larger complex web of relationships and that its decisions can have an impact far beyond its own boundaries. Therefore, community economic development embraces strategies that aim to benefit the local and the larger community.
Living within ecological limits: Community economic development recognizes that the social, cultural and economic well-being of the community depends on healthy local, regional and global ecosystems and that there are real ecological limits to human economic activities. Therefore, community economic development encourages processes, structures and initiatives that respect these ecological limits and supports work that is sustaining, regenerating and nurturing of both the community and the earth.
Capacity building: Community economic development contributes to self-reliance by encouraging the acquisition of relevant skills and the development of supportive structures and institutions.
Diversity: Community economic development contributes to self-reliance by encouraging economic activities that are diverse and appropriate to the express needs within the community and region. As a result, community economic development looks different in each community.
Appropriate indicators: Community economic development monitors and evaluates its progress through community derived and appropriate economic, social, cultural and ecological indicators rather than through conventional measures and standards.
That is a long list but I think it indicates how community economic development approaches are perfectly suited to the needs of a regional economic development agency.
It might seem like a bit of a digression but I want to talk briefly about the issue of literacy. We celebrated National Literacy Day just a few weeks ago. Improving adult literacy skills is one area of community economic development that needs more attention. We think that should be part of the mandate of all of Canada's regional development agencies.
The skills that a community workforce needs change as the community moves from a resource or farming economy to one based on knowledge or tourism. Overall, workers from agriculture, fishing and forestry occupations have shown lower literacy skills than other working age adults. In some parts of Canada nearly half the working age adults do not have the necessary literacy skills to work in knowledge economy jobs.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that 33% of Canadian businesses reported training problems because of low literacy rates. How can any community build its overall economic social and environmental capacity when half the people available to make that happen do not have the needed skills. It is a national shame that we do not work harder to provide all of our citizens with the training they need throughout their lifetime when we expect all workers to continually upgrade their skills.
Regional development agencies should be empowered to help train adult workers in literacy skills in both of our official languages. Education and training are part of the building blocks to building a strong and prosperous economy.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the NDP's support for the establishment of the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec. We also urge the government to ensure that community economic development, the social economy, is central to the activities of the agency.
My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, will be working hard on this legislation and looks forward to continuing the discussion on the bill in committee on behalf of the NDP.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to listen to all of the hon. member's speech. However, I would like to give him the opportunity to explain to me further what he thinks of the way the current government and Canada Economic Development are fulfilling their responsibilities and doing their work, for the Quebec region in particular, so that we can speak further on the development of our regions in Quebec.
In that sense, I would like to hear his comments on how he sees the situation. I would like him to assess the result of the actions or maybe I should say inactions. What does the hon. member have to say on that subject?
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that we have seen that a lot of the economic development in Canada is focused on the private sector, on small and medium size businesses, which is a good thing because they generate a lot of economic activity in our country.
However, what we are trying to emphasize today is that community economic development needs to be an explicit part of the mandate of an agency such as this one. Local communities need to have more of a say in the kind of development that happens in their areas. The people of the community need to have more involvement in the actual project. The communities need to have more learning and capacity building to do the kind of economic development work that is most important for the people of those regions.
We think the government needs to pay more attention to community economic development all across the country. Now that we have the opportunity, with the establishment of this agency, it needs to be an explicit part of its mandate.
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this House to speak to an important bill that is being presented at second reading.
Bill C-9 is important because it concerns the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which works on behalf of the entire population of Quebec. The purpose of this agency is to encourage the implementation of projects throughout Quebec that will provide our fellow citizens with development opportunities.
The bill before us today is a good example of this government's vision for the future, a vision in which our current and future entrepreneurs are encouraged to turn their innovative ideas into projects and can count on the Government of Canada to help make these projects a great success.
The purpose of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is to promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec. It focuses particularly on regions where economic growth is slow and there are not enough jobs. It seeks to improve regional employment opportunities and prosperity for the long term.
In carrying out its mandate, the agency helps the Government of Canada fulfil its commitment to promoting equality of opportunity for all Canadians in the pursuit of their well-being.
As part of its core mandate, the agency targets two key strategic outcomes to contribute to the economic development of the regions of Quebec. The first is enterprise development and the second is the improvement of the environment for economic development of the regions.
We all know that in Canada, enterprises are the main driving force behind economic development and wealth creation. There is no doubt that the economic development of the regions involves the growth of enterprises.
For this reason, to contribute to building a 21st-century economy founded on innovation, the agency provides Quebec SMEs with a continuum of support necessary for innovation, from access to financing for the startup of innovative enterprises to the commercialization of innovative products via the adoption of new technology and more productive equipment.
It is in that context that SKL Aluminium Technologie in Saguenay was granted repayable financial assistance of $243,125 for the establishment of an aluminum heat exchanger and radiator plant.
I draw your attention to this announcement, because when this was done, it was to help an Ontario business that provided materials for vehicles to the United States and that was previously buying its products in the United States. Thanks to the commitment of Canada Economic Development, we have helped a business from our region to provide an Ontario business with products for vehicles built in the United States.
This project, besides creating eight jobs, has led to the development of a strategic partnership with various businesses in the region that specialize in the processing of aluminum. Financial support to this project was a priority in the efforts of Canada Economic Development to consolidate and increase the favoured position of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region in the secondary and tertiary processing of the white metal.
In Carleton-Saint-Omer, in the Gaspé Peninsula, the thalassotherapy centre Aqua-Mer benefited from a $1.938 million contribution to expand its facilities. The centre attracts a lot of foreign tourists and its activities have a ripple effect on other businesses in the region. It is now better positioned to help making Carleton-Saint-Omer a most valued destination both at home and outside our borders in relation to health tourism.
This project, which will increase the number of cure-days, fits well with one of the priorities of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which is to increase tourism development in Gaspesia-Magdalen Islands.
Let me give the House another example of what we were able to do with Canada Economic Development, and we often work with other departments to ensure that our interventions are more effective. Just think about the aluminum technologies centre, where the Government of Canada made an investment of $57 million, including $25 million from Canada Economic Development, to recruit 80 researchers to help develop aluminum and particularly secondary and tertiary processing.
In collaboration with the National Research Council of Canada and the Department of Industry, this $57 million project has already had considerable economic impact on the region, Quebec and Canada. Through Canada Economic Development we were able to invest $2.9 million in a planned automotive parts factory, which enabled Alcan to obtain a contract for manufacturing aluminum bumpers for Cadillac cars. This contract could have gone to either of two cities, Jonquière or Detroit. Therefore, because of the investments by Canada Economic Development, with its partners in the Government of Canada, we were able to help create this project that provided some 50 jobs.
In the centre of Quebec, the agency joined with Industry Canada to provide total support of $4.7 million to VisuAide in Drummondville, to support the development of assistive technologies for persons with visual disabilities. This project, aimed at developing innovative digital devices for persons with visual disabilities, will further the development of accessible and affordable technology for these persons.This is not only a promising project in terms of technological innovation and optimization of the innovative capacity of local businesses, but also a technological application that will provide a clear improvement in quality of life for many of our fellow citizens.
Here are some examples of the grants made by the Canada Economic Development Agency that demonstrate the diversity of its activities and its commitment to support projects that blend into the existing economic fabric of the regions of Quebec.
Moreover, these projects share a common outcome: to create more dynamic, more competitive businesses with a greater ability to create prosperity and employment in their own regions. Regional economic development is not only about SMEs and entrepreneurs. The whole community must participate and take ownership in order to make it a success.
That is the context in which, as I said before, the agency works at improving the environment for regional economic development. In order to do so it supports development organizations that provide services regionally. It also supports non-profit agencies and businesses with plans for projects to develop a region's competitive advantages and spirit of entrepreneurship.
Through its funding of such organizations, the agency seeks to create a network of businesses that can take full advantage of projects to improve the economic development environment, so that the expansion of these businesses creates increased economic activity, employment and income.
Allow me to give two examples to illustrate the role played by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in improving the economic development environment in the regions.
In recent years, several studies have demonstrated the wind power potential in the Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine area. This potential explains the interest shown by a number of regional stakeholders in the development of the wind power industry, which could generate billions of dollars in investments in the Gaspé Peninsula.
As a result, a non-profit organization, the Technocentre éolien, was created. Its role is mainly to gather and distribute information to its members. For example, the organization is working on setting up in the area a research and development centre identified as necessary for industrial development. The operations of the technocentre are funded by Canada Economic Development and the Government of Quebec on a 50-50 basis, which, once again, shows the importance of collaboration and of serving the well-being of the public.
In addition, the agency provided $1.5 million in support to the Quebec Wood Export Bureau, commonly known as Q-Web, to promote, over a three-year period, the value-added wood products of Quebec on export markets.
We need not emphasize the importance of this action, considering the crisis that the softwood lumber sector is going through because of the tariffs imposed by the Americans. Canada Economic Development helps ensuring that we reduce our dependency on one market and increase our exports in order to promote jobs in this country.
This contribution will allow the organization to establish a commercial vigil on the certification of forest products on foreign markets. Moreover, the contribution of the agency will allow Q-Web to develop the American market for value-added products for new exporters. Representing 185 manufacturing companies in the exports industry, Q-Web is opening international markets for wood products from Quebec.
This is again representative of what Economic Development Canada is doing in the regions of Quebec. I would be remiss if I did not mention the Crossroads for Industrial Materials Innovation in Boucherville, i which the government, through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, invested $6 million, again in cooperation with NRC and Industry Canada. This allows Quebec researchers to innovate, to find new ways of developing products to start businesses or to create jobs and wealth here in our regions.
I have visited the Industrial Materials Institute in Boucherville and I recall seeing researchers developing a porous metal that could be injected in patients' spines to prevent a second hip operation. It cuts costs and promotes speedy recovery. This is a Quebec product that can be exported worldwide.
This shows the importance of the Economic Development Agency and government allies in the development of Quebec's economy. These examples show that the federal government is committed to give the regions the tools they need, not only to face new market conditions, but also to take advantage of them for the benefit of the Quebec population as a whole.
I wish I could give you many more tangible examples from all the regions in Quebec to illustrate the importance of Economic Development Canada. There are examples in connection with the environment, where we help our businesses to go green and to be more efficient and more environment-friendly, while saving money. Success was achieved thanks to help from Economic Development Canada and partners like the Department of the Environment and other departments. Businesses all over Quebec appreciate the environment clubs that were created for the purpose of helping them.
As far as the development of businesses owned by women is concerned, the CFDCs, in all regions of Quebec, contribute to economic development, in cooperation with Economic Development Canada. CFDCs are our proud partners in the creation and development of female entrepreneurship. I can testify to the fact that they achieved great successes. They must be encouraged and thanked.
Programs in the areas of softwood, textiles and clothing are currently going through a terrible crisis. We must work together to find solutions. Can we say that Economic Development Canada did anything about that situation? Of course, they created programs aimed at supporting communities and industries when possible.
In conclusion, allow me to pay tribute to our 14 regional and central offices, their staff and the women and men who are dedicated to the well-being of Quebeckers and all Canadians.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my hon. colleague for Beauce. I find the various regional development possibilities quite interesting. I believe we are all aware of the tremendous needs all over Quebec. Earlier on, my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine made us aware of the various needs in her region.
The problem at present is one of duplication, since the Quebec government already has an effective regional development policy, and what is stopping that policy from reaching its full potential is the present lack of funding to adequately meet all needs.
I see this as an illustration of fiscal imbalance. With all the surplus money in Ottawa—we learnt recently that the surplus for last year was almost $10 billion—it is tempting for the government to move into areas which are already under the responsibility of the provinces and create a second body at some cost to Canadian taxpayers.
When I stop to think of the number of civil servants it takes to properly manage a new regional development policy, over and above one which is already in place in Quebec, I do believe that this is not an efficient way to spend our money.
Finally, this is clear proof of fiscal imbalance as it presently exists. The fact is that if we were forced to tightly manage taxpayers' dollars, the government would hardly consider setting up a body which simply duplicates what is already there.
I therefore turn to my colleague for Beauce and ask him to explain how he can deny that what we have is a continuing fiscal imbalance which allows his government to get involved in areas where Quebec is already present.
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from the Bloc, when he mentions provincial political efficiency in regional economic development, thinks about the Gaspe. I hope not. It is a fiasco, with which the Government of Quebec and the Société générale de financement were closely linked. Mr. Blanchet and Mrs. Marois were partners. Is it the example of a regional success story the hon. member wants to give?
We hear about duplication. I find it curious that the Government of Quebec created a revenue department. It is a choice they made, and we respect that. However, the other provinces did not make that choice. It is duplication. We respect that too. Elsewhere, we had the RCMP; they decided to have Sûreté du Québec, not that we are complaining.
Competition is not exclusive to the private sector. It exists between departments or between levels of government in an effort to provide better service to Canadians. Since 1997, I have had the honour to sit here as the member for Beauce. I was here during the manpower training issue. There was a healthy competition between provincial and federal departments then.
Today, we avoid duplication. We transfer annually $600 million to the Province of Quebec. Now, there is no more duplication, but people have to take a number and wait for their turn. Do they have better service? I am not sure, but this is what stakeholders wanted and we accepted it.
However, we are able to work together. If the Bloc member is here to defend the interests of his constituents and of Quebeckers, he will help us implement an independent agency with the tools to contribute to the economic development of the regions. That is what we are doing.
I remember that, during the softwood lumber crisis, the members of the Bloc were asking us to do something, because the situation made no sense. We accepted, we contributed approximately $300 million to help in that file, but we could not support the industry. I asked the members of the Bloc what the PQ government did. Was it not there to help? They answered that this was an international issue. Are the men and women living in regions international? No. They need support. What did the PQ do? Absolutely nothing.
Would that mean it is not perfect? Indeed, it is not perfect. Have they done good things? Yes, they have. We also have done positive things, we want to work with the Province of Quebec. With a liberal government at the federal level and in Quebec, it is much easier because we both have the same interest: that is, the Quebec people.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate to hear the member's comments about the Gaspé. I clearly remember how the hon. member, who exercised other responsibilities in another life, bragged about having played a key role in the Gaspé recovery plan; he made sure that $70 million dollars would be not invested but loaned—mark my word, loaned—even though $110 million had been requested. We had to wait 18 months to receive this answer.
To that extent, if there is a fiasco, it is due to the manner in which the federal government, the department and its minister, handled the Gaspé file at the time, that is, by dragging their feet before making an announcement. Moreover, they have provided much less money than was anticipated, making it a lot more difficult for investors, the people who wanted this recovery plan and who believed in it.
Why was the Gaspé recovery plan credible back then, and is now being dismissed out of hand? This makes no sense.
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the Bloc Québécois member are a bit much.
Why did it take so long? Because we wanted guarantees and we wanted to make sure that the project would work. Unfortunately, stakeholders applied a lot of pressure and the timetable had to be moved up. I would also point out to the hon. member that I was not there at the time. However, I support the decision made because we wanted to help the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. We had to make sure that all the necessary tools were in place for the project's success.
Unfortunately, we probably went a bit too fast and, today, the project has come to an end. Hopefully, it can be revived. Hopefully, companies from outside the region will give it new life, because that is what counts for the Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. That is what we, as the Government of Canada, want to do through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec--help this region and all other regions in the province of Quebec, by working with the community.
That is the way we are going to succeed.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, the member for Beauce, who, by the way, held the position I now hold, and did so brilliantly, with integrity and effectiveness, and I want to pay tribute to him.
In terms of content—I am not talking about politics, but wording—the bill before us simply gives official effect to a decision whereby Economic Development Canada, which was earlier part of the Department of Industry, now becomes independent of that department.
How does he interpret the fact that, since the beginning of the debate, the Bloc members opposite have concentrated exclusively on their agenda of separation and handing back money to Quebec, whereas, actually, we are talking about giving Quebec more power to manage its own affairs?
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments are really important, and I would like to thank him for his fine words.
What he said is important because, in effect, the question is as follows: How can the Bloc Québécois be hurt by the fact that Economic Development Canada is independent and no longer part of the Department of Industry? What is wrong with that?
Is that going to adversely affect the regions? No. Can we work for the betterment of the people, as the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency so aptly said? Yes, and that is what the members of the Bloc Québécois should be interested in doing--working for the betterment of the people with what is presently on the table.
We are in a united Canada. We are working for all the provinces and all the territories, and they should respect that and make sure that communities get what they are entitled to in all the regions of Quebec.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-9. I would like to take this opportunity to rectify a few things that have been said earlier in this debate which started at 10 a.m., particularly with respect to statements that were made by government members.
When we look at the strategy behind the creation of this department, we see that this is a duplication. I want to go back to what the member for Beauce and the minister responsible for the agency said earlier, when they stated that this government would work with the various levels, the people in the field. I have a hard time understanding why Quebec's government was never mentioned. All that was said was that the agency bypasses Quebec's decision makers and attempts to solve a problem.
This approach requires a significant amount of energy. A lot of time is being wasted, between this agency and the Government of Quebec, establishing priorities. If this government were serious, it would announce today that, with the creation of this department, it intends to include the Government of Quebec in order to better define the priorities of the regions.
Personally, I consider that the Government of Quebec, with the CLD structure, has a model local and regional development tool. This model includes people from municipalities, decision-makers, business people and also people from the communities. It was first promoted by former minister Guy Chevrette, then by Louise Harel, when she took over the municipal affairs and regions. It is a model that really meets the expectations in Quebec.
Talking about CFDC, some of them work very well with the CLD, but not within the guidelines given by the federal government to CFDC. There are men and women working in these regional organizations who really care about regional development and go beyond partisanship and the presence of the Canadian flag. They work with people from the community and often, they establish exceptional cooperation links with people from the CLD.
There are structures in Quebec. What Quebec needs is money. We have denounced the tax imbalance over and over. Before establishing again a Department of Regional Development, the Government of Canada should consult the Government of Quebec to identify its needs. All we hear today is how this department will work with people in the community, neglecting, of course, to consult the Government of Quebec, bypassing the people who manage the local and regional infrastructures in Quebec.
Some people are trying to make me say that there is no new duplication, and I don't understand why the supporters of Bill C-9 today can't see the duplication. Personally, I have a hard time understanding that the federal government has responsibilities in this field.
The responsibilities of a federal government are to intervene in its own jurisdictions. Currently, there is a whole lot that the federal government could do in its own jurisdictions.
There are some economic issues in Quebec, including in my riding, that are the result of situations with the Americans, the Chinese or other nations. The federal government should deal with these issues.
Why is the federal government still dragging its feet regarding the mad cow issue? Imagine: a single cow has brought a whole economic sector to a standstill, a sector that is critical for Quebec, namely the dairy production. This problem has been going on since May 2003. And they are telling me that this government is taking action? Yet, this issue comes under its jurisdiction. It is up to the federal government to deal with border disputes.
As we know, and the hon. member for Beauce should know that, the textile industry is currently going through a crisis. Again, this is a crisis triggered by the Liberal government's lack of responsibility. It is that same government which decided that, on December 31, 2004, quotas would be lifted to further promote trade. This government did not do anything to prepare our local and regional industries to meet these new challenges.
A number of industries in small towns are closing. When this happens, for example in a town of 2,000 or 3,000—and there are several ones in my riding—when a plant that employs 125 or 150 people stops operating, it is almost the end for that town.
Earlier, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said that he did his best to resolve the textile crisis. He announced some programs, but budgets were non existent. There is no money left. We are confronted with these issues on a daily basis. There are no transition measures. This government failed to do its duty by not preparing the industry to face these new global challenges.
Today, this government wants to establish a department to try to save our regions. This is not acceptable. The main reason why people had to leave our regions is because the employment insurance fund was robbed. Just imagine a young person in a region who wants to replace a seasonal worker ready to retire. Up to now, this person needed 450 or 500 working hours to be entitled to benefits. Employment insurance is there for a reason. In all its geographic diversity, Quebec needs a program to support its seasonal workers. A young person willing to replace a retiring worker who was ready to show him or her the ropes will now have to work 900 hours to be entitled to the same benefits. What do these young people do? They get discouraged. They leave the regions for the big centres. As a result , a poverty belt is forming in Quebec's central regions, in the main cities. Once again, it is the Canadian government that created this poverty belt by ignoring the needs of the unemployed.
And they want to convince us today that Bill C-9 will solve regional problems.
There is no way that the Bloc Québécois will accept another partisan tactic. Let me explain how Economic Development Canada works, how it respects elected officials and how regional directors are given instructions.
More and more, we are seeing the 54 democratically elected members of the Bloc Québécois being shut out of decisions made by regional directors. And they are telling us that they want to fix the democratic deficit. This is a good example of the democratic deficit.
The Centre-du-Québec region, which is very familiar to me, has been without a director for three years. This is an economically powerful region. Every time the social and economic stakeholders ask Economic Development Canada for help, there is a lot of foot-dragging. Everything has been centralized in Trois-Rivières by an individual who completely ignored the needs of the Centre-du-Québec region. And passing Bill C-9 is supposed to solve all these problems?
We have noticed as well that Canada Economic Development has become a promotional tool for Liberal partisanship. It is crazy how much partisan work former MPs get. Just look at the former member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Gérard Binet. He is busy because every time Canada Economic Development has something to do, he is there. Christian Jobin is another former Liberal member. He was defeated and has a special mandate to set up some sort of summit on municipalities, another action that once again interferes in Quebec's business. I could name others.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: David Price from Compton—Stanstead.
Odina Desrochers: There is also David Price from Compton—Stanstead. These people use taxpayers' money, Canada Economic Development, or any other arrangement set up by this government, to promote themselves and get re-elected.
One thing is certain: we are 54 members and these 54 members—maybe more—intend to keep coming back to denounce this government's actions since it came back to this House on October 4.
Since I have only seven minutes left, I will not have enough time to get into how far removed this bill is from Quebec reality. However, I will take the time to talk about—in the hopes that the Liberals will understand—how the people of the regions of Quebec take care of their own responsibilities.
We have CLDs—I mentioned this earlier. We have regional structures. We increasingly try to hold our municipal representatives accountable. We give businesspeople their space. We pay particular attention to the community groups. In Quebec, un like in the rest of Canada, we take a much more social democratic approach than the Conservative or the Liberal approach taken in Ontario and the rest of Canada.
I hope that all our arguments today will help the minister and the Liberal team recognize the serious mistake they made in introducing Bill C-9. I also hope that during the work on possible amendments to this bill, the federal government will be open and honest enough to recognize that, once again, it has created an organization while ignoring Quebec.
At that point, we will recognize that this government has specific plans for Quebec.
As I was saying, I have been listening all day to the Liberal Party members. I only heard the name “Quebec” when I was being told that this bill is about a law to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Beyond that, Quebec was never mentioned in the speeches of these members. On the other hand, we understand from what the Liberal government has said is that they intend to intrude in the regions, to take control of our regions, while ignoring what these regions really expect.
The Quebec government, that of Mr. Landry or of Mr. Charest, regularly consults the regions to discover their expectations. Did the minister take the time to review these people's work? Did he take the time to get more familiar with Quebec's expectations?
Earlier, I was listening to the member for Beauce enumerating the numerous projects in which his government had been involved. I wondered whether the member for Beauce thought we were going into an election tomorrow. That was not very helpful in terms of preserving jobs. Usually, any politician, wherever he came from, especially when he is in office, holds a press conference to report his accomplishments. This is when the quality of the government and its accomplishments are praised.
Just a moment ago, the member for Beauce was saying that his government did a lot for softwood lumber. Only one phase of the assistance program has been implemented. We're still waiting for phases two and three. We're still waiting for this government to listen to industry and to give it support. This crisis has been going on for three years but the government does not budge.
What great programs, what a great philosophy and what small projects. I was listening earlier. The member had all that he needed to go on a tour of Quebec. He said he spread all the federal money over the regions and that that is how the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec will be strong. Only small amounts were negotiated and they were announced in the absence of elected representatives. They keep the members of the Bloc away from the action. We run our own show. And then these people have the gall to tell us that they are working with the local stakeholders.
I believe that the first stakeholder of a riding is the member of Parliament who was democratically elected by the people. Speaking of the democratic deficit, I would have liked, at least, for them to try to work on a cooperative basis rather than on a partisan one. As I was saying, there are many examples of what the Prime Minister boasted about before the election. The fight against the democratic deficit, just like the issue of asymmetry, lasted only the duration of a conference. We talked about asymmetry, and English Canada got angry. The Ontario caucus said: “Wait a minute, Mr. Prime Minister, do not give too much to Quebec. You were not able to get many members elected in Quebec. If you are Prime Minister of a minority government, it is because of Ontario.” The Prime Minister then came up with another approach for the fiscal imbalance. He did not listen, he just imposed his views, the same way Jean Chrétien used to.
Nothing has changed. The only change in this Parliament is that, through a democratic effort, we, the opposition parties, are now at least able to adopt motions to push some issues forward. Members will recall the many times, under the 1997 and 2000 governments, that proposals from opposition members were systematically turned down by the Liberal government. Any motion, amendment or idea from the opposition was simply voted down.
Since I have only a minute left, let me say that all 54 Bloc Québécois members, all CLDs, all regional bodies in Quebec, as well as the Quebec government are saying to the federal government: “No to Bill C-9”.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, there are so many contradictions I do not know where I should start. The hon. member talked about the sprinkling of CED money for the sake of visibility, and then he said he regretted not being invited to public announcements.
Does he want to be invited because he has worked on the project being announced? Not at all. Is it because he initiated the project? Not at all. Why does he want to be invited? Because it is a photo op.
Why accuse others of wanting to be visible when his sole goal is visibility? This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It does not make sense.
The hon. member also talked about cooperation. Let me remind him of the Alumiforme case in the Saguenay area, for example. Canada and Quebec cooperated closely to promote secondary processing of aluminum. There is also the Centre de recherche en biotechnologies marines. Again, $6 million came from the federal government and $8 million from the province. We worked in cooperation and took care of both the infrastructure and the equipment.
And what about Montréal International? Perhaps the hon. member does not know that Montreal is also an area in need of development.
Something fascinates me. In the very riding of the hon. member, 5 businesses and 172 jobs were created over the last year only, thanks to the action of my department.
I have a question for the hon. member. I have to go back to my CED office in Montreal today to sign a financing proposal of $300,000 for the Chaudière-Appalaches ATR. The chief executive officer of the ATR is Mr. Richard Moreau. Would the hon. member opposite like me to tell Mr. Moreau that, at the request of the Bloc, I have refused to authorize this $300,000?
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that, at long last, ATR will receive the money, which does not come from the government, but from our pockets. So, it is only fair to have that money go back to our regions from time to time.
I have spoken with Mr. Moreau and the people of ATR. They were asking me why that was taking so long. I told them it was the federal government's trademark. They let organizations run out of breath so that, in the end, they can appear as a saviour.
I know Mr. Moreau well, we have an excellent relationship, but when EDC comes bragging in the riding to announce its financial assistance, let the local elected official be recognized. I will understand then that this party is not partisan, but that it understands that in a community, the most important person is the elected member.
When I am told that the only reason I want to be there is to be in the photo, that—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An member: Come on.
An member: What do you know about it? Are you in his riding?
Odina Desrochers: You know it is not the first time that these things get on their nerves. There is a storm brewing. A few inches of snow are being forecast and, when that happens, there is turbulence in the House of Commons. Liberals often behave like children.
The same goes for teachers or professors who see students demonstrating become unruly in such cases. It is like that every time there is a storm of criticism in this Parliament. They become unruly, they do not listen and they revert back to Jean Chrétien's good old method: arrogance.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am a bit surprised that my colleague across the way sees himself as a student at a demonstration. That is what he said earlier on. I am both surprised and intrigued
He is right on one aspect. It is true that, whenever a government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, spends or invests money, it does so with taxpayers' money, all coming out of the same pocket.
However, I take pride in the fact that, having been asked to manage that money, we chose to redistribute it to the ATR in his region as a key priority, based on its excellent plan. It does take time and that is because, as a government, we act responsibly. We do not throw money around, left and right indiscriminately. We do a careful, professional and systematic analysis. We work in cooperation with applicants. Once we have all the information, we work on the plan.
While he is posturing and telling the gentleman across the way, once again, how worthless we are--it is so predictable--we do the work and deliver the goods.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the gall to say that he spends his money well and that he delivers the goods. I hope the minister is following the work of the Gomery Commission and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' deliberations. If the regions had received the money that was funneled instead into the agencies and into small projects all planned by Liberal members, I could stand here and tell you that Quebec regions are in good shape. I do not think the minister has any right to comment on the way we manage our money in Quebec.
Never before have we been faced with such a scandal that tarnishes Canada's history. I was just saying a few minutes ago that I hope the Liberal government will be held responsible, whether it be before Gomery, before the public accounts committee or before the House of Commons. I hope that there will be legal, maybe even criminal sanctions and, more importantly, that the government will legislate to ensure that it is the last time in Canadian history that such a shameful financial scandal ever occurs. That is what responsible people would do.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on the soundness of his comments. I think the hon. member put his finger on the real issue. I would ask him to elaborate further on what is going on with Bill C-9 that is before us.
Indeed, I understand that we need to be very careful about what we have now, because this bill could be just smoke and mirrors. So I would like to hear again his views on federal interference and the new government asymmetry. I think we could learn more from the hon. member.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Bill C-9 is like a good number of bills that have been introduced, by the Chrétien government as well as by the current one, and like the throne speech. All of them are commitments involving Quebec's home turf. Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised to see that the usual intrusion into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in this bill.
Personally, I do not believe that this government will cooperate with the Government of Quebec. It will go above its head. It will try to pose as a saviour in regions it itself destroyed with previous policies
In this respect, the Bloc Québecois will keep an eye on them. If Bill C-9 turns out to be a change of course in the behaviour of the Liberal government, democracy will be the winner. Unfortunately, after what I have seen in the throne speech, and what I have heard since 10 o'clock this morning, I am still under the impression that we will end up with duplication; therefore, people will not know what doors to knock on. Often, those people will say: “If you knock on the door of CLD, don't expect anything from us”. This type of blackmail does exist. If you encourage the little Canadian flag, you won't need the little government of Quebec. This often happens.
It is for this reason that every time the government introduces a bill to deal with the regions of Quebec, it is always the nice Canadian flag that we see in the background.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague spoke to the general director of ATR, why did he not tell me about it? Maybe it means that he did not do his work as a member of Parliament?
Secondly, when they become paranoid because a bill mandates all of Quebec's representatives, federal and provincial, to work together and develop the regional economy, they get upset. I would like to know why.
Maybe they are not happy because Ms. Normandeau, who is my provincial liberal counterpart and who is well versed in those issues, and I, who believe I am also doing well, have done interesting things together for the Gaspe Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence as well as for young people. Of course, members opposite are disturbed by that. It is a proof that federalism works.
Finally, when we talk about interference, perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to read the Constitution before asking such a question?
The Speaker: I ask the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable to give a very short answer.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, the answer will be very short.
It is because I do not trust the Liberal government.
The member accuses me of not being in contact with stakeholders in that area. The hon. member will know that during election campaign, I went to the regional ATR and I was told that the government in dragging its feet. Today, it is trying to portray itself as a saviour. Those people had financial problems. I hope they will receive their $300,000.
However, it was not the case when I met them during the election campaign. The ATR said: “You know, if a Liberal member is elected, you may get your money.” This is what I call political blackmail.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak today in connection with the bill on the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
Our government has set itself the objective of ensuring the success of Canadians in each and every region of our country. Its intention is to support our fellow citizens, as far as is possible, in the realization of their aspirations for prosperity and an enhanced quality of life.
This is the context within which the Economic Development Agency of Canada fulfills its mandate to promote the economic development of the regions of Quebec. To that end, it pays particular attention to all the regions of Quebec, especially those with a slower growth rate and insufficient jobs for the size of their population.
In my capacity as a member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to see for myself the work done by the agency to ensure the regional economic development of Quebec and improve its residents' quality of life. The agency has, for instance, made the financial commitment to provide over $1.02 billion for 2,116 projects during 2003-04. When investments from other funding bodies are factored in, the total value of these projects represents an injection of over $3.9 billion into the economy of the various regions of Quebec.
What is more, these projects have contributed to the creation, conversion or maintenance of close to 13,700 jobs in all of the regions of Quebec, regions such as Chaudière-Appalaches, where $60,000 from Economic Development Canada has enabled Soliroc Metal to enhance its productivity. With this financial assistance, the company was able to acquire more efficient equipment, and as a result to raise its productivity by 60%.
This is one example of the kind of projects Canada Economic Development has supported, which have highly positive economic spinoffs for the competitive position of a company, thereby enabling it not only to continue to grow, but also to play a vital role within its community.
In the region of Quebec, the National Optics Institute received a $3.6 million contribution from Canada Economic Development to implement an agro-photonic research program. The purpose of this research campaign is to bring together two major industries in the region, namely agro-processing and optical photonics technologies.
Canada Economic Development wanted to support this regional initiative because it has consolidated the institute's leading position in the industry and paved the way for various economic development projects in many regions of Quebec.
In the Lower St. Lawrence, the marine biotechnology research centre was set up with a contribution of $7.6 million from Canada Economic Development. To carry out its work, the centre plans to create 24 direct jobs and 75 spin-off jobs. In addition, the centre's activities will bring top researchers to the region to set up new companies.
I should add that these research facilities are a priority to the people of the Lower St. Lawrence. This is why Canada Economic Development wanted to be involved in carrying out this project as part of its commitment to support initiatives that best respond to the needs of the public and that target the strength of the region. These projects contribute to solidifying the economic development opportunities in the regions that welcome them and other regions in Quebec.
These examples show what Canada Economic Development does. They also show that the agency attaches a high level of importance to the promotion of innovation throughout Quebec. This priority stems from our government's commitment to building the robust and innovative economy that we all want for our country in the 21st century.
The projects I mentioned illustrate Canada Economic Development's goal to strengthen the niches of excellence specific to each region of Quebec.
In all, in 2003-04, the agency invested $54.6 million in 739 innovative projects in Quebec. These investments have led to the creation, transformation or maintenance of 4,796 jobs. Furthermore, even the promoters have said that without the financial support of Canada Economic Development, 55% of the projects would never have materialized.
In order to foster a culture of innovation in the regions of Quebec, Economic Development Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada contributed $3.6 million to the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue in order to take part in an important research project aimed at developing a new beef product that meets consumers’ more demanding requirements.
Once again, I would like to say that this project came about through an initiative of regional cattle producers and researchers. Besides creating 34 jobs, this initiative should translate into a 15% to 20% increase in profits for the industry. As I pointed out earlier, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec also supports communities in their efforts to focus on their strengths and take charge of their development.
The agency's goal is to promote public interest initiatives that could have a significant impact at the regional level as well as generate a ripple effect on regional economic activity. The agency works with a network of partners that includes 57 community futures development corporations, 15 community economic development corporations and 9 business development centres.
For the 2002-03 fiscal year, the various projects that received loans from community futures development corporations generated $135 million in regional investments. These loans amounted to some $45 million. The nine business development centres were involved in 222 investment projects and 570 technical assistance files.
It is in the context of the partnership between the Economic Development Agency of Canada and Quebec's network of community futures development corporations, that the AFER program, designed to help women entrepreneurs in rural areas, was implemented. This pilot project consisted in establishing a financial assistance fund to stimulate women's entrepreneurship in rural areas. The twelve community futures development corporations participating in this initiative represented the Gaspé, Magdalen Islands, lower St. Lawrence, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, North Shore, Saguenay, Mauricie, Chaudières-Appalaches and Montérégie regions. So far, the AFER program has assisted 93 women entrepreneurs and has contributed to the creation of 31 businesses and 60 jobs in various Quebec regions.
The Fonds AFER Canada is indicative of the Government of Canada's desire to foster greater participation of women in the overall economy of the Quebec regions and in the efforts to diversify the development opportunities in the various communities of Quebec.
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the Economic Development Agency of Canada is active in all Quebec regions.
For example, the agency promoted the Entreprises rurales Nord-du-Québec initiative. In this project, Economic Development Canada gives $50,000 annually to the Chapais-Chibougamau, Matagami and Eeyou Economic Group CFDCs to help them sustain activities that they could not have financed within their mandate.
The CFDCs were able to support eight new business projects only in the last six months or so and, thanks to this funding, many local business people will be able to enlarge their market share and increase their revenues. In other words, they will create wealth in their region and their fellow citizens will benefit.
I would like to remind the members of the House that the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec also helps Quebec's municipalities renew their infrastructure.
The purpose of this part of the agency's mandate is to help Quebec's communities to maintain their capacity to attract businesses, and to improve their citizens' quality of life.
Through the Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Works program, which entrusted to Economic Development Canada the management of the projects, the Government of Canada contributed a total amount of $463 million to the realization of 867 projects, from the beginning of the program in 2000 to March 31, 2004.
Thanks to all those different projects, 484,408 Canadian families have already had or will have access to municipal waterworks providing better quality drinking water.
Also, almost 5,950 families will be hooked up to a proper municipal sewer and wastewater treatment system. And 260 communities will benefit from the construction or improvement of sports or cultural facilities.
During the last few years, the Canadian government has often stated its commitment to build a strong Canadian economy for the 21st century, an economy that creates quality jobs and equal opportunities for all individuals and regions in Canada.
The Economic Development Agency of Canadafor the Regions of Quebec accepts fully this goal, as the bill before us shows. The agency also plays an active role in the implementation of the broad economic priorities of the government in the whole province of Quebec, and its many good results speak for it.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech just made by the member. I found some elements particularity interesting. When the various initiatives of Canada Economic Development are mentioned, one is left with the impression that everything is just fine.
However, for regions such as mine, which I know quite well, we can also take stock of what Canada Economic Development has done. With regard to the Gaspésie-les-Îles region recovery plan, any action taken was late as well as minimal. And this was a situation which required urgent action.
It may therefore seem important to list all the initiatives taken by Canada Economic Development in Quebec, since this makes it look efficient and active, but there is unfortunately another reality, one which hits us close to home. It has to do with what we see when we take stock of what Canada Economic Development has done in the Gaspésie-les-Îles region.
And I am not the only one saying it. On May 26, 1991 in Chandler 7,500 people gathered in an arena to complain about what the federal government and Quebec had not done for the region.
About 10 years later, there have been complaints in the region, again in relation to the federal government's inaction. When we talk about the agency, putting aside the numbers, putting aside what I have heard a moment ago, I think we must look at the situation as it is. Unfortunately, the results are weak and negative.
I would therefore like the hon. member to explain why, with so many good initiatives, we are faced with problems in this region and it is hard to see a future there. We have the impression that there is a lack of action, that we are being ignored, that we are being forgotten by the federal government.
They offer up all sorts of initiatives, but I think it would be appropriate to look at the other side of the coin, what is really going on. The fact is that initiatives have been infrequent, ineffective, late and often partisan. In this respect, Quebec needs to play a greater role. We know what the needs are, and we also know the solutions.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I find strange some of the comments made by my colleague, who claims that many investments made by the federal government in his region have had a negative impact. His math is foreign to me.
Let me tell you briefly about Canada Economic Development's activities in the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region as of October 6, 2004; there were 62 financial projects totalling $14.1 million. Where is the negative impact here? If we were to talk to the stakeholders my colleague claims to speak for, would these people agree with him that there is a negative impact there?
Most of the 62 projects I mentioned came under the emerging initiatives and development of medium-sized enterprises components. This means that we invest in emerging technologies, which is good for the future of this region. Again, I do not see how investing in the future could have a negative impact. I have a hard time understanding some of my colleague's remarks.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on the whole list of the government's investment projects in various regions. At first glance, this looks quite interesting. However, given the scope of the needs, it should be possible to invest in various areas. The problem is to invest in the really useful sectors that truly reflect the region's needs.
Earlier, the hon. member for Beauce told me that it was important to have competition and that the Quebec government should not be left on its own. I am surprised to hear such a reply from the government. Does this mean that the Canadian government sees itself as being in competition with the Quebec government? Are the projects they choose to support competing with those of Quebec or, in their minds, more successful, more important for the population of the region? Or is it simply that the Canadian government does not believe that the Quebec government is effective?
Earlier, the Gaspesia fiasco was used as an example to explain the lack of importance of the Quebec government in regional development. I think the federal government would be well-advised not to elaborate too much on fiascos for which it is responsible. Take, for instance, the case of Mirabel, which is a monumental fiasco in which billions of dollars were invested. And what about the sponsorship scandal, which is truly a fiasco created by the whole government bureaucracy?
So, I wonder if the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis could comment on the role of a second government regarding the same regional development issues.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been working with the provinces for decades, even before my colleague's party was first formed.
Having said that, I sincerely believe, and this is my personal opinion, that no individual or government has a monopoly on ideas. The more ideas we have and the more analysis we do, the better. In my opinion, it is in this spirit that the federal government is working with the Province of Quebec.
I noted that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House had a tendency to wander off topic when they were talking about Mirabel and other matters a little while ago. I would therefore appreciate if my colleagues would stick to the subject of today's debate, which is an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement, something I had not planned at the outset. Due to the importance of the topic we are debating today, it seems a good idea to me to express my opinion on the bill.
I am an engineer by trade and I have 40 years of experience. I therefore have a logical mind; I calculate things and the value of decisions. But I have always been a committed man, a citizen committed in his community and concerned about decisions made by the various governments. That is why I find it very important today to tell you that I am against the bill.
It is not because I am against Canada, contrary to what a colleague opposite stated yesterday, in saying that the Bloc Québécois was against Canada. Our position is not against Canada. We want the two governments to spend our money as effectively as possible. This is really the position I want to express. It is not about competition, about determining the better of the two. It is not about lumping them together and letting them fight it out to try and make just about everybody happy. That's the way to waste our money. It goes without saying that our general level of taxation in Quebec is much higher than that of North America as a whole. There is a link with all those decisions.
Regional development policy is a very complex issue. Significant structures must be put in place in every region to monitor the needs of the regions and make the choices that will help them. We must not be partisan and say that we will fund a project because it is presented by friends or people we know, and that will please them. The important role the government must play is to be non partisan and understand the needs of each region. Members are aware of the fact that their region must be developed to the maximum, regardless of their political stripes.
This is why the Quebec government put in place a regional development structure that has already proven to be very efficient. As I said earlier, I found odious that members mention a fiasco of the Quebec government without talking about all its successes. It is out of line with the discussion we are having today. I do not believe that we are out to prove the Quebec government is incompetent and hence the reason for the Canadian government's getting involved in the area. In politics everyone tries to make the best possible decisions. Mistakes are always possible, and it is important to recognize it and change tack.
I would like the government, instead of putting forward this bill, to further officialize its involvement in an area where the Quebec government is already involved by having a minister in charge of this agency. Such a move would further politicize the whole issue of duplication. For that reason, we are opposed to the bill, not because we are against regional development, since we really need it.
What we are lacking in Quebec is money. We have been saying it for a long time. There is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. It is that money we need. The current government should instead put forward a bill to transfer to the Quebec government the money it usually allocates or is trying to allocate to regional development. That way, the Quebec government could do a better job.
David Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see that my colleague across the way feels that the Canadian federation serves a purpose. As Canadians, we have to work with our fellow Canadians in Quebec, as I do.
For example, in my lovely riding of Pontiac, which is just across the river, not far from here, we regularly work with members of the Quebec National Assembly to find solutions that enhance the quality of life of our taxpayers.
This week, I will have the pleasure of taking part in press conferences to announce funding as a result of a solid analysis by Canada Economic Development and all the people. The CLD's role in the projects was to participate in the analysis of the business plan. The CFDC played another role on another level. The CED will also contribute, as will other Quebec agencies and departments.
This is a perfect example of a collective effort for the well-being of our region, the beautiful riding of Pontiac.
And now the question for my colleague opposite: Does the member believe that this formula, under which federal and provincial members work together with all the regional stakeholders to find solutions that will enhance people's lives, is a good thing?
Does he apply the same philosophy in his riding that we do in Pontiac?
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Indeed, I think that we must be positive in the action that we take as members of Parliament. When we work within a well established system, we must of course cooperate as much as possible to achieve common goals. I commend him for applying this principle.
Personally, since I am a new member of Parliament, I still have not had many opportunities to cooperate with my provincial counterpart, but this is already a given. We will have good cooperation.
That being said, however, this is not a reason to agree to such an intrusion in an official way, let alone through the approval of the bill. Despite all the goodwill of my colleague, he must admit that, with regard to regional economic development, there are certainly several public servants and a budget behind all this. They must analyze and coordinate the action of both governments so that they do not impede on each other.
Despite all the goodwill to cooperate that might exist, this would still not be efficient, because we would create a duplication of public servants and joint responsibilities, which would make this system more costly. Anyway, in most cases, there is no cooperation and, in the end, decisions do not necessarily meet the real needs of the people, because each government holds tight to its own projects and priorities, despite all the goodwill on both sides.
David Smith: Mr. Speaker, in my riding there is a roundtable of all federal and provincial stakeholders. There are anglophones, francophones and Algonquians working together for the good of the community. I encourage my hon. friend opposite to take part in this kind of working environment for the good of the community and of all Quebeckers.
With respect to the program before us, we are not creating a new structure. This structure already exists. We are just removing the Industry Canada shell and giving it its own identity.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan for a brief answer.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief.
It is obvious that the same structure is being maintained. But the important point is that it will create a department, with a minister who is responsible, who, in any case, will politicize the whole federal approach even more, which will only complicate all negotiations and collaboration that may be happening with the various levels of government.
The Speaker: There are five minutes remaining for questions and comments on the speech by the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. He may continue the next time this bill is before the House.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 15, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)